S.T.P v. State Of Ind.

• Decision Date: 20 July 2010
• Docket Number: No. 71J01-0809-JD-669,No. 71A04-0912-JV-729,71A04-0912-JV-729,71J01-0809-JD-669
• Parties: S.T.P., Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

S.T.P., Appellant-Defendant,

v.STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff.

No. 71A04-0912-JV-729

No. 71J01-0809-JD-669

Court Of Appeals Of Indiana

July 20, 2010

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MARK F. JAMES Anderson, Agostino & Keller, P.C. South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana ANN L. GOODWIN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

APPEAL FROM THE SAINT JOSEPH PROBATE COURT

The Honorable Peter J. Nemeth, Judge

The Honorable Harold E. Brueseke, Magistrate

MEMORANDUM DECISION-NOT FOR PUBLICATION

FRIEDLANDER, Judge.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, S.T.P. admitted the truth of three theft allegations, and the State dismissed a number of other allegations. The juvenile court, therefore, adjudicated S.T.P. a delinquent child and entered a dispositional order awarding him to the Department of Correction (the DOC). Following S.T.P.'s release from the DOC, the juvenile court reinstated its jurisdiction over S.T.P. and entered a restitution order. On appeal, S.T.P. argues that the juvenile court erred in reinstating jurisdiction over him.

We affirm.

Pursuant to Ind. Code Ann. § 31-30-2-3 (West, Westlaw through 2010 Public Laws approved and effective through 3/25/2010), a juvenile court may within thirty days after receiving notification from the DOC of the juvenile's release from custody reinstate jurisdiction¹ over the juvenile for the purpose of modifying the court's original dispositional decree. In the instant case, S.T.P. was released from the DOC on May 12, 2009, and the juvenile court received notice of his release on or shortly before that date.

On June 3, 2009, S.T.P.'s probation officer filed a verified petition for modification specifically "requesting that [the juvenile] court regain jurisdiction in this case for the purpose of establishing restitution in the amount of $916.66." Appellant's Appendix at 22. The court scheduled the matter to be heard on June 10. Upon S.T.P.'s motion, the hearing was continued and rescheduled for July 15, 2009. On July 7, the State and the probation department filed a motion for the court to reinstate jurisdiction pursuant to I.C. § 31-30-2-3. Following an additional continuance and a number of hearings, the juvenile court issued anorder of restitution on December 1, 2009.

The sole basis of S.T.P.'s appeal is his contention that the request to reinstate jurisdiction was untimely because it was not filed until July 7, 2009, more than thirty days after notification of his release. S.T.P. wholly disregards the initial verified petition filed by the probation department on June 3, which expressly asked the court to regain jurisdiction.² In light of this timely request and the juvenile court's setting of a hearing on that request within the thirty days allotted by statute, the juvenile court properly reinstated its jurisdiction in this matter.

Judgment affirmed.

KIRSCH, J., and ROBB, J., concur.

1. As a...