Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe Indiana Supreme Court will again consider the reach of the juvenile courts when oral arguments scheduled for Thursday bring a return of the question of jurisdiction in a case involving a minor who admitted to the delinquent act of dangerous possession of a firearm.
The case, M.H. v. State of Indiana, 22S-JV-251, is one of three cases scheduled for oral arguments Sept. 22. Also on the agenda are two cases challenging the sentences imposed on criminal defendants, one of which brings back to the Supreme Court the confusion over waivers in plea agreements.
In M.H., a 14-year-old defendant was adjudicated in Elkhart Circuit Court as a delinquent after he admitted to the dangerous possession of a firearm. He was arrested in June 2019 and was alleged to have committed a delinquent act under Indiana Code § 35-47-10-5.
However, in 2020, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in K.C.G. v. State of Indiana, 20S-JV-263, that juvenile courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction in adjudicating juvenile delinquents for the offense of dangerous possession of a firearm under I.C. 35-47-10-5. The justices found that because state law does not contain a corresponding adult crime of dangerous possession, the minor could not have committed the “delinquent act” and the juvenile court could not rule on the matter.
The decision prompted the Indiana General Assembly to amend I.C. 31-37-1-2 in 2021. House Enrolled Act 1256, authored by Rep. Wendy McNamara, R-Evansville, inserted language into the statute that designated dangerous possession as a delinquent act subject to the jurisdiction of a juvenile court.
After the Supreme Court ruled, M.H. filed a motion for relief, asserting his judgment was void ab initio and must be vacated. The juvenile court denied the motion, relying on the statute as it was amended in 2021.
In M.H. v. State of Indiana, 186 N.E.3d 1145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), the Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed, finding that under the law in effect at the time of M.H.’s actions, the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction.
“Applying the amendment retroactively would imperil M.H.’s constitutional right to be free from ex post facto laws,” Judge Paul Mathias wrote for the appellate panel in March. “It is beyond dispute that penal statutes in effect at the time of an offense are controlling.”
Also, on Tuesday’s docket is Matthew H. Thomas Davis v. State of Indiana, 22S-CR-253, and Amanda Dawn Carmack v. State of Indiana, 21S-LW-471. Both cases challenge prison sentences.
In Davis, Matthew Davis accepted a plea agreement for theft-related offenses that included a prohibition on him appealing his term of incarceration. Yet, during sentencing, the Madison Circuit Court advised he did have the right to appeal.
The Court of Appeals dismissed both of Davis’ separate appeals, Matthew H. Thomas Davis v. State of Indiana, 21A-CR-2632 and 21A-CR-2633.
In August, a majority of the justices denied transfer to two other cases raising questions about plea agreements. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeals prompted now-retired Justice Steven David to dissent and question whether defendants “knowingly and voluntarily” waive their right to appeal.
In Carmack, Amanda Carmack was sentenced to life without parole after a Grant County jury found her guilty of murder, neglect of a dependent resulting in death, domestic battery resulting in death to a person under 14 years of age and strangulation. In her direct appeal to the Supreme Court, Carmack raises the issue of whether the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not act in “sudden heat” when she killed the victim.
Oral arguments for Carmack will begin at 9 a.m. followed by M.H. at 10 a.m. and Davis at 11 a.m.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.