Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

T.A. v. State

Court of Appeals of Indiana

October 19, 2016

T.A., Appellant-Petitioner,
v.
State of Indiana, Appellee-Respondent.

         Appeal from Marion Superior Court. The Honorable Marilyn A. Moores, Judge. The Honorable Geoffrey A. Gaither, Magistrate. Cause Nos. 49D09-1210-JD-2749 49D09-1301-JD-40 49D09-1304-JD-1004 49D09-1305-JD-1375 49D09-1512-JM-1024 49D09-1512-JM-1025

          Attorney for Appellant Patricia Caress McMath Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana

          Attorneys for Appellee Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana Henry A. Flores, Jr. Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

          Barteau, Senior Judge

         Statement of the Case

         [¶1] T.A. appeals the juvenile court's denial of his petitions for expungement in six juvenile proceedings. We reverse and remand with instructions.

          Issue

         [¶2] T.A. raises one question of law, which we restate as: whether the juvenile court erred in denying his petition for expungement.

         Facts and Procedural History

         [¶3] T.A. has had numerous brushes with the juvenile justice system, resulting in multiple cases. The State dismissed one of the cases, JD-2749, in 2012, and dismissed three more, JD-40, JD-1004, and JD-1375, in 2013. Two other cases, JM-1024 and JM-1025, arose from arrests of T.A. in 2008 and 2009, but the State declined to file formal delinquency petitions.

         [¶4] On December 3, 2015, T.A., who is now an adult, filed a petition for expungement. In the petition, T.A. asked the juvenile court to expunge his records from the six cause numbers referenced above. The State did not file a written response to the petition. The juvenile court issued a scheduling order on January 5, 2016, setting a hearing for January 26, 2016.

         [¶5] It is undisputed that, at the time T.A. filed his petition, he did not have any pending criminal charges. It is further undisputed that, after T.A. filed his petition but before the January 26, 2016 hearing, the State filed an unspecified criminal charge against him. After the hearing, the juvenile court denied T.A.'s petition in its entirety. This appeal followed.

         Discussion and Decision

         [¶6] T.A. argues the juvenile court should have immediately granted his petition for expungement because he met all of the statutory requirements on the date he filed the petition. The State responds that the juvenile court did not err because T.A. had a pending criminal charge at the time of the hearing and because the State has an interest in maintaining access to all of T.A.'s records.

         [¶7] There are no disputes of fact. Instead, the parties present questions of statutory interpretation. We review questions of law de novo. Dada v. State, 39 N.E.3d 686, 687 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015). If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we refrain from applying rules of statutory instruction and instead give the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meaning. J.B. v. State, 27 N.E.3d 336, 338 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015).

         [¶8] When the language in a statute is susceptible to multiple interpretations, it is deemed ambiguous and open to judicial construction. Taylor v. State, 7 N.E.3d 362, 365 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014). We read portions of a statute and portions of an act together so that no part is rendered ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.