W.L. v. State
| Decision Date | 18 March 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A04-9804-JV-228,49A04-9804-JV-228 |
| Citation | 707 N.E.2d 812 |
| Parties | W.L., Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
W.L. was adjudicated a delinquent upon admitting that he committed an act that would constitute the crime of Theft, 1 a class D felony, if committed by an adult. Upon appeal, W.L. presents the following restated issue for review:
Did the juvenile court err in granting the State's Motion to Reopen for Restitution?
We reverse.
The facts are that the Marion County Prosecutor's Office filed an information alleging that W.L. stole a tent and a wading pool from a neighbor's yard, acts that would have constituted the crime of theft if committed by an adult. W.L. admitted the charges and was adjudicated a delinquent child. As a result, on January 8, 1998, the court ordered that W.L. be placed on suspended commitment, ordered family counseling, entered a parental participation order, and ordered that W.L. do extra chores in his home. On January 22, 1998, the State filed a Motion to Reopen for Restitution containing, in pertinent part, the following:
1. This matter was originally set on January 8, 1998, at 9:00 in Court 1, for Disposition.
2. Deputy Prosecutor Rob Seet did not have the file available to refer to in court on January 8 when the Court closed this case so that Respondent could proceed to Disposition under 97JD4773.
3. When the prosecutor's file was found, it was discovered that the victim had an outstanding claim for restitution in the amount of $250.00[.]
4. The State respectfully requests that the Court reopen this cause so that a claim may be presented on the victim's behalf.
Record at 31. The court granted the motion and conducted a restitution hearing on April 7, 1998. When the restitution hearing commenced, W.L.'s counsel objected to the proceedings. The court overruled the objection and proceeded with the hearing. This appeal ensued.
Appellant argues upon appeal that the trial court was divested of jurisdiction over W.L. after entering the dispositional decree, citing Wilson v. State, 688 N.E.2d 1293 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). In Wilson, this court reversed an order imposing restitution that was entered after sentence had been entered, stating:
The trial court's sentencing order did not purport to retain any continuing jurisdiction over Wilson. Further, as we find no statutory provision which would give the trial court jurisdiction to enhance Wilson's sentence by entering a restitution order after a sentence has already been pronounced, we hold that the trial court lacked authority to enter such an order.
Id. at 1295. The facts in Wilson differ from those in the instant case in one important respect: Wilson did not involve a juvenile proceeding. This fact alone makes Wilson 's holding inapposite because in a juvenile proceeding, the court may retain jurisdiction following sentencing without explicitly so stating. Such is not true in criminal cases where the defendant is not under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court.
A juvenile court retains jurisdiction under Ind.Code Ann. § 31-30-2-1 (West 1998) until "(1) the child becomes twenty-one (21) years of age, unless the court discharges the child and the child's parent, guardian, or custodian at an earlier time; or (2) guardianship of the child is awarded to the department of correction." In the instant case, the juvenile court discharged W.L. and his parents in the dispositional decree. Therefore, the court did not retain jurisdiction of W.L. after entry of the decree. The next question is whether the juvenile court's reassumption of jurisdiction over W.L.'s case was valid.
IC § 31-30-2-3 provides that a court may, for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BR v. State
...Correction intends to release a child from its custody. See I.C. § 31-30-2-3; J.J.M., 779 N.E.2d at 607 n. 1 (citing W.L. v. State, 707 N.E.2d 812, 813 (Ind.Ct.App.1999)). In S.W.E. v. State, 563 N.E.2d 1318, 1320-22 (Ind.Ct.App.1990), this court was presented with the same issue raised by ......
-
JJM v. State
...that retains jurisdiction over a juvenile may modify a dispositional decree so long as it retains such jurisdiction. W.L. v. State, 707 N.E.2d 812, 814 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). In the instant case, however, the juvenile court discharged J.J.M. upon entry of the dispositional decree to the Indiana......
-
S.T.P v. State Of Ind.
...the DOC. See I.C. § 31-30-2-1 (West, Westlaw through 2010 Public Laws approved and effective through 3/25/2010). 2. In W.L. v. State, 707 N.E.2d 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), a case cited by S.T.P., we observed "there is a distinction between a petition to reinstate jurisdiction and a petition ......
-
In re A.T., 45A03-0712-JV-610.
...discharges the child and the child's parent, guardian, or custodian at an earlier time [.] (Emphases added.) See also W.L. v. State, 707 N.E.2d 812, 814 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (holding juvenile court that discharged delinquent child divested itself of jurisdiction and was without jurisdiction to......