Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

W.T.J. v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided July 27, 1999No. 49A05-9808-JV-390Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRucker, Judge

The majority concludes the trial court erred in imposing a determinate sentence. I disagree. A juvenile court is vested with flexibility in determining the appropriate dis-positional alternative to impose on a juvenile who is adjudged to be delinquent. Madaras v. State, 425 N.E.2d 670, 671 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) (finding that flexibility provided by juvenile system in dealing with juvenile problems is of primary importance). Although options other than commitment to an institution are available for juvenile courts to utilize in dealing with a juvenile, there are times when commitment to a suitable…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Cooper v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Thomas v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1990
  3. Madaras v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1981
  4. Steelman v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1992
  5. In Matter of JenningsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1978

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API