Robb, J.
The State filed a delinquency petition alleging that N.B. had committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute child molesting, a Class B felony, and also filed a petition to waive juvenile jurisdiction. N.B. filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to his age, and the juvenile court granted the motion. …
In June 2018, T.C. informed her therapist that her cousin, N.B., had fondled her vagina about six years prior. T.C. stated that N.B. had been fifteen or sixteen at the time of the offense and, at the time of her disclosure, N.B. was twenty-one or twenty-two years old. …
On November 5, 2018, the State filed a request for authorization to file a petition alleging that N.B. is a delinquent child for committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute child molesting. The same day, the juvenile court approved the request and the State filed its petition alleging delinquency. On November 13, N.B. pleaded guilty to criminal confinement resulting in bodily injury, a Level 5 felony, in an unrelated matter. The State subsequently filed a motion for waiver of juvenile jurisdiction and the juvenile court scheduled a hearing on the matter.
While the State’s motion was pending, on February 26, 2019, the State filed an amended motion for waiver of juvenile jurisdiction asserting that N.B. was a child who had been previously convicted of a felony – specifically, N.B. had been convicted of criminal confinement resulting in bodily injury, a Level 5 felony, on November 13, 2018. The State subsequently submitted a brief in which it argued that, due to N.B.’s prior felony conviction, the juvenile court must waive N.B. to adult criminal court pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-30-3-6. The scheduled waiver hearing was continued several times.
On May 24, 2019, N.B. filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over him because he cannot be considered a “child” under the delinquency statute as he was no longer under age twenty-one. Therefore, N.B. argued that the juvenile court lacked personal jurisdiction over him and the court “may not proceed in this matter and must dismiss it with prejudice.” N.B. attached to his motion a copy of this court’s decision in M.C. v. State, 127 N.E.3d 1178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), in which a panel of this court agreed with the parties that the juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a twenty-two year old defendant delinquent and enter a disposition. …
The juvenile court held a hearing on June 18 and took the matter under advisement. The juvenile court subsequently entered an order in which it found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction in the matter and granted N.B.’s motion to dismiss. …
The State argues the juvenile court improperly granted N.B.’s motion to dismiss because the juvenile court did have subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether waiver of jurisdiction is appropriate. Further, the State maintains that if the juvenile court lacks jurisdiction, then jurisdiction must rest with the criminal court. Relying on M.C. v. State, N.B. argues the juvenile court loses all jurisdiction over juvenile offenses after the offender becomes twenty-one years old. We agree with the State.
The issue here stems from an apparent confusion between the juvenile court’s jurisdiction to enter an adjudication against an adult defendant and its ability to accept and entertain a delinquency petition and waiver to adult court. Our court recently clarified this very issue in D.P. v. State, a nearly identical case handed down after the parties in this case submitted their briefs. No. 19A-JV-690, 2019 WL 6109276, at *2, *3 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2019). … There, the State had filed a delinquency petition alleging that when D.P. was sixteen years old, he committed an act that would constitute child molesting as a Class B felony if committed by an adult; the State also filed a request to waive jurisdiction to adult criminal court. At the time the State filed its petition, D.P. was twenty-three years old. In response, D.P. filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over him because he was twenty-three years old at the time the petition was filed. Specifically, he argued that, pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-30-1-1, the juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction over proceedings when a person is alleged to be a delinquent child; however, the juvenile court’s jurisdiction continues only until the child becomes twenty-one years old. The juvenile court denied D.P.’s motion, finding that it had original jurisdiction because the alleged crime occurred when D.P. was sixteen years old and the State properly filed a delinquency petition and requested waiver to adult court. …
A panel of this court held the juvenile court had subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether to waive D.P. to adult court …
Further, the court noted that M.C. was distinguishable because the juvenile court did not adjudicate D.P. a delinquent and enter a disposition; it “merely entered an order approving the filing of the delinquency petition and scheduled a hearing on the motion to waive juvenile jurisdiction.” Id. at *3 n.2. Such is the case here.
M.C. concerned the juvenile court’s ability to adjudicate a defendant over age twenty-one a delinquent child and enter a disposition, 127 N.E.3d at 1178, whereas D.P. and this case concern the juvenile court’s ability to entertain a delinquency petition and waive juvenile jurisdiction, 2019 WL 6109276, at *2. Together M.C. and D.P. stand for the proposition that a juvenile court has subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a delinquency petition and waive a defendant to adult criminal court but does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a defendant over age twenty-one a delinquent child and enter a disposition.
Applying that proposition here, we conclude the juvenile court in this case had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the State’s delinquency petition and determine whether to waive N.B. to adult criminal court. The juvenile court, however, would not have jurisdiction to adjudicate N.B. a delinquent and enter a disposition.
We conclude the juvenile court had jurisdiction to accept and entertain the State’s delinquency petition and determine whether N.B. should be waived to adult criminal court. Therefore, the juvenile court erred in granting N.B.’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse the juvenile court’s judgment and remand to the juvenile court with instructions to rule on the State’s motion for waiver.
Reversed and remanded.
Bradford, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.