T.B. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 07 2020, 8:09 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Ivan A. Arnaez Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Evansville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Samuel J. Dayton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
T.B., October 7, 2020
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-JV-852
v. Appeal from the Posey Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Craig Goedde,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
65C01-0908-JD-179
Mathias, Judge.
[1] In 2010, the Posey Circuit Court adjudicated T.B. to be a delinquent child for
committing what would have been Class C felony child molesting if committed
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-852 | October 7, 2020 Page 1 of 8
by an adult and ordered T.B. to register as a sex offender. Ten years later, T.B.
filed a motion to set aside the juvenile court’s adjudication, claiming that he
was denied the right to a jury trial. The juvenile court rejected T.B.’s motion,
concluding that it lacked jurisdiction because T.B. was no longer a juvenile.
T.B. appeals and claims that the juvenile court erred in denying his motion
because he was denied what he contends to be his common-law right to a jury
trial. Although the juvenile court erred when it determined that it lacked
jurisdiction to entertain T.B.’s motion, we nevertheless affirm the trial court’s
denial of T.B.’s motion to set aside because it fails as a matter of law.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On August 21, 2009, the State filed a petition alleging that T.B. was a
delinquent child for committing what would be Class C felony child molesting
if committed by an adult. At a fact-finding hearing held on April 21, 2010, T.B.
admitted to the allegations in the petition, and the juvenile court found T.B. to
be a delinquent child. The juvenile court held a dispositional hearing on June 7,
2010, at which time it placed T.B. on probation for twelve months. The court
also ordered T.B. to undergo offender-specific counseling.
[3] On November 21, 2011, the juvenile court held a hearing to determine if T.B.
should be required to register as a sex offender. The parties were ordered to
submit their proposed findings and conclusions by January 23, 2012, and the
court set a progress hearing for February 27, 2012. At the February 27 hearing,
the juvenile court found T.B. to be at a high risk to commit a future sex offense
and ordered him to register as a sex offender for the next ten years. T.B.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-852 | October 7, 2020 Page 2 of 8
appealed the juvenile court’s order requiring that he register as a sex offender,
but we affirmed the trial court’s decision. T.B.B. v. State, No. 65A04-1203-JV-
146, 2012 WL 3599365 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2012).
[4] On February 4, 2020, T.B. attempted to e-file a motion to set aside the juvenile
court’s orders finding him to be a delinquent child and requiring him to register
as a sex offender. Appellant’s App. p. 12. On March 3, 2020, the juvenile court
rejected the e-filing, concluding that it “ha[d] no jurisdiction over the Motion
due to the fact that [T.B.] is no longer a juvenile (but an adult age 28 . . .), that
the matter was appealed and ruled upon with no additional appeal, and that the
matter is now closed.” Id. at 12.1
[5] Then, on March 10, 2020, T.B. again e-filed his motion to set aside. This time,
the juvenile court accepted the filing but denied the motion, again concluding
that it “d[id] not have jurisdiction over the matter” for the reasons it stated
when it rejected the initial e-filing. T.B. now appeals.
Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)
[6] A motion to set aside a judgment is governed by Indiana Trial Rule 60(B),
which provides in relevant part as follows:
Mistake—Excusable Neglect—Newly Discovered Evidence—
Fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just the court
1
For some reason, neither T.B.’s attempted e-filing nor the juvenile court’s ruling thereon is listed in the
court’s chronological case summary. See id. at 9–10. They are, however, detailed in the juvenile court’s order
denying T.B.’s subsequent motion to set aside.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-852 | October 7, 2020 Page 3 of 8
may relieve a party or his legal representative from a judgment,
including a judgment by default, for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) any ground for a motion to correct error, including
without limitation newly discovered evidence, which by due
diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for
a motion to correct errors under Rule 59;
(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an
adverse party;
* * *2
(6) the judgment is void;
(7) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or
a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or
otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the
judgment should have prospective application; or
(8) any reason justifying relief from the operation of the
judgment, other than those reasons set forth in sub-paragraphs
(1), (2), (3), and (4).
The motion shall be filed within a reasonable time for reasons (5), (6),
(7), and (8), and not more than one year after the judgment, order or
proceeding was entered or taken for reasons (1), (2), (3), and (4). A
movant filing a motion for reasons (1), (2), (3), (4), and (8) must
allege a meritorious claim or defense. A motion under this
subdivision (B) does not affect the finality of a judgment or
2
Subsections (4) and (5) deal respectively with entry of default judgment against a party who was served only
by publication and where an infant or incompetent person was not represented by a guardian or other
representative. These subsections are inapplicable to the present case
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-852 | October 7, 2020 Page 4 of 8
suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a
court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a
judgment, order or proceeding or for fraud upon the court. Writs
of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review
and bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the
procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by
motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
T.R. 60(B) (emphases added).
[7] Because a juvenile delinquency adjudication is civil in nature, post-conviction
procedures are not available to challenge such an adjudication. A.S. v. State, 923
N.E.2d 486, 489 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citing J.A. v. State, 904 N.E.2d 250, 254
n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied). Accordingly, our supreme court has held
that “Trial Rule 60 is an appropriate avenue through which a juvenile must
raise any and all claims premised on the illegality of an agreed delinquency
adjudication.” J.W. v. State, 113 N.E.3d 1202, 1207–08 (Ind. 2019). We review
a trial court’s ruling on a Trial Rule 60(B) motion for an abuse of discretion.
A.S., 923 N.E.2d at 490 (citing S.E. v. State, 744 N.E.2d 536, 538 (Ind. Ct. App.
2001)).
Discussion and Decision
[8] T.B. claims that the juvenile court erred in denying his motion for relief from
judgment because, he insists, he was denied his right to a jury trial. The juvenile
court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because T.B. is now an adult. The
State concedes that the juvenile court had jurisdiction, but it insists that the
court properly denied T.B.’s motion. We agree with the State that the court had
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-852 | October 7, 2020 Page 5 of 8
continuing jurisdiction to modify its original order. D.D.J. v. State, 640 N.E.2d
768, 769 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans. denied; see also Jordan v. State, 549 N.E.2d
382 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (considering juvenile court’s denial of Trial Rule 60(B)
motion filed by now-adult petitioner), trans. denied. But we also agree with the
State that the trial court nevertheless properly denied T.B.’s motion for relief
from judgment. See Pirant v. State, 119 N.E.3d 178, 180 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)
(holding that court on appeal may affirm trial court’s ruling on motion for relief
from judgment if it is sustainable on any basis supported by the record). And
here, there are several bases in the record to support the denial of T.B.’s motion.
[9] The first is procedural. Although he appeals from the denial of his motion for
relief from judgment, no portion of his forty-page brief (or his fifty-eight-page
motion for relief from judgment) explains under which subsection of Trial Rule
60(B) he brought his motion. Even if we overlook this failure to cogently argue
the procedural aspects of his case, we observe that a motion to set aside a
judgment brought under subsections (1), (2), (3), and (4) of Trial Rule 60(B)
must be brought within one year of the judgment. Thus, to the extent that
T.B.’s motion is based on any of these reasons, it is untimely.
[10] And to the extent T.B.’s motion sought relief under subsections (5), (6), (7), or
(8) of Trial Rule 60(B), it was still required to be filed within a reasonable time.
Here, T.B. filed his motion for relief from judgment almost ten years after his
juvenile adjudication. T.B. makes no argument regarding why this excessive
delay was reasonable, and we conclude that it was not reasonable. See Jordan,
549 N.E.2d at 384 (holding that lapse of over twenty years between juvenile
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-852 | October 7, 2020 Page 6 of 8
delinquency adjudication and motion for relief from judgment supported
conclusion that motion was not filed within a reasonable time).
[11] Furthermore, there is no indication in the record before us that T.B. ever
requested that the juvenile court hold a jury trial or that he ever objected to
having his case heard by the court instead. Nor did he present such a claim in
his direct appeal. This issue was known and available to T.B. at the time of his
direct appeal, yet he failed to present it. Trial Rule 60(B) cannot be used to
present a claim that could have been, but was not, presented on direct appeal.
Perkins v. State, 718 N.E.2d 790, 792 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
[12] Perhaps most important, however, is that T.B.’s claim that he was entitled to a
jury trial at his juvenile delinquency adjudication is directly in conflict with
binding precedent from our supreme court. In Bible v. State, 253 Ind. 373, 389,
254 N.E.2d 319, 327 (1970), our supreme court clearly held that “after very
careful consideration of the case law, our Juvenile Act and the guidelines
formulated by the U.S. Supreme Court, we have reached the conclusion that a
juvenile is not constitutionally entitled to a trial by jury at a delinquency
hearing.” T.B. acknowledges the holding in Bible, but he claims that our
supreme court was wrong. Although T.B. is certainly free to make this
argument, we are required to follow the binding precedent of our supreme
court. “We are bound by the decisions of our supreme court.” Dragon v. State,
774 N.E.2d 103, 107 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing In re Petition to Transfer Appeals,
202 Ind. 365, 376, 174 N.E. 812, 817 (1931)).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-852 | October 7, 2020 Page 7 of 8
[13] For all of these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court denying T.B.’s
motion for relief from judgment.
[14] Affirmed.
Bradford, C.J., and Najam, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-JV-852 | October 7, 2020 Page 8 of 8