Trial court had the authority and duty to make requisite findings on special immigrant juvenile status in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J).
Juvenile
Morrell v. State, No. 18A-CR-1282, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 21, 2019).
Trial courts may not use non-adjudicated juvenile contacts with the justice system as an aggravating circumstance in sentencing.
J.W. v. State, No. 19S-JV-12, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 9, 2019).
A juvenile who challenges the validity of a consent judgment must first seek relief from the trial court under Trial Rule 60(B) and is entitled to legal representation in doing so.
B.T.E. v. State, No. 36S05-1711-JV-711, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 11, 2018).
The defendant’s planning, solicitations, bomb research, drawings depicting the target classroom, and death note together justify the trial court’s conclusion that his affirmative conduct amounts to a substantial step toward the commission of aggravated battery.
C.S. v. State, No. 18A-JV-862, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 19, 2018).
Ind. Code § 31-37-18-1.3 requires that a delinquent child be given notice of and an opportunity to be heard during a dispositional or modification hearing; however, the child is not required to be physically present and participation via video conferencing is enough.