D C v. State of Indiana
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. FILED Dec 09 2021, 8:08 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Katelyn Bacon Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General Catherine E. Brizzi Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA D.C., December 9, 2021 Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-JV-984 v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Duane Merchant, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49D09-2003-JD-262 Crone, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-984 | December 9, 2021 Page 1 of 3 [1] D.C. was adjudicated delinquent and was placed on informal probation, from which he was discharged after several months. D.C. appeals that disposition, and we dismiss his appeal as moot. [2] In March 2020, the State filed a delinquency petition alleging that D.C., who was born in November 2000, committed acts in 2014 or 2015 that would constitute level 3 felony and level 4 felony child molesting if committed by an adult. In March 2021, after a factfinding hearing, the trial court adjudicated D.C. delinquent for the level 3 felony allegation and not delinquent for the level 4 felony allegation. The court placed D.C. on informal probation, from which he was discharged in July 2021. [3] D.C. now appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in placing him on probation. The State argues, and we agree, that this appeal should be dismissed as moot because we cannot render effective relief to D.C. C.J. v. State, 74 N.E.3d 572, 575 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. D.C. urges us to address his appeal under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, “which may be invoked when the issue involves a question of great public importance which is likely to recur.” T.W. v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc., 121 N.E.3d 1039, 1042 (Ind. 2019) (quoting Matter of Tina T., 579 N.E.2d 48, 54 (Ind. 1991)). But D.C. does not argue that the specific issue that he raises Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-984 | December 9, 2021 Page 2 of 3 involves a question of great public importance, and we note that Indiana case law provides plenty of guidance on that issue. 1 Consequently, we dismiss. [4] Dismissed. Bradford, C.J., and Tavitas, J., concur. 1 D.C. relies on W.R.S. v. State, in which another panel of this Court addressed an otherwise moot appeal from juvenile detention and dispositional orders based on the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine because it determined that the issues raised would “likely arise again but [would] evade appellate review[.]” 759 N.E.2d 1121, 1123 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). In C.J., however, we noted that our supreme court had rejected this “reliance on the ‘likely to evade review’ element in deciding whether to resolve a moot case on the merits under [the public interest exception].” 74 N.E.3d at 575 n.2 (quoting In re Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 37 n.2 (Ind. 1991)). We further observed that the issues raised in W.R.S. “involved alleged statutory violations, or issues that were likely to recur if not resolved by an appellate court.” Id. D.C. raises no such issue here. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-JV-984 | December 9, 2021 Page 3 of 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
