J.R. v. State

100 N.E.3d 256 (Mem)

J.R., Appellant (Respondent),

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Petitioner).

Supreme Court Case No. 18S–JV–285

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Argued: June 7, 2018

FILED June 25, 2018

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Joel M. Schumm, Indianapolis, Indiana, Ruth Ann Johnson, Marion County Public Defender Agency, Appellate Division, Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Stephen R. Creason, Ellen H. Meilaender, Matthew B. MacKenzie, Deputy Attorneys General, Indianapolis, Indiana

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02–1704–JV–754

Per curiam.

The juvenile court held a fact-finding hearing and found sixteen-year-old J.R. delinquent for committing acts that would be dangerous possession of a firearm and carrying a handgun without a license ("CHWOL"), had they been committed by an adult. J.R. appealed, arguing that the police who found the handgun in his possession during a pat-down search violated his rights under the United States and Indiana Constitutions to be free from unreasonable searches. J.R. also argued his dual adjudications constitute double jeopardy when each is predicated on the same evidence of his possession of a single handgun.

The Court of Appeals decided the pat-down search did not violate J.R.'s rights. On the remaining issue, the parties agreed that double jeopardy principles preclude his dual adjudications and, therefore, that his adjudication for CHWOL should be vacated. See Appellant's Br. at 15; Appellee's Br. at 20–22; Appellant's Amended Reply Br. at 8; Appellant's Resp. to State's Pet. to Trans. at 4. But the Court of Appeals sua sponte held the adjudication for CHWOL must be vacated for a different reason: that, as a matter of law, a delinquency adjudication cannot be based on CHWOL. It vacated the adjudication for CHWOL and affirmed the adjudication for dangerous possession of a firearm.

J.R. v. State , 89 N.E.3d 408 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), reh'g granted , 94 N.E.3d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), vacated . Each side sought transfer, which we granted.

We held oral argument and have considered the appeal. We summarily affirm the parts of the Court of Appeals' original opinion that address and reject J.R.'s challenge to the pat-down search, including the sections entitled "Facts" and "I. Search and Seizure." See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).

As the parties agree on disposition of the double jeopardy issue, we remand to the juvenile court to vacate the delinquency adjudication for CHWOL, and we affirm the delinquency adjudication for dangerous possession of a firearm.¹

All Justices concur.

1 See J.G. v. State , 93 N.E.3d 1112, 1125 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (affirming delinquency adjudication for dangerous possession of a firearm and remanding to vacate adjudication for CHWOL where juvenile argued, and State conceded, the CHWOL adjudication should be vacated on double jeopardy...