ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Danielle L. Gregory Steve Carter
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Monika Prekopa Talbot
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
______________________________________________________________________________
In the
Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________
No. 49S02-0510-JV-00456
A.E.,
Appellant (Respondent below),
v.
STATE OF INDIANA,
Appellee (Petitioner below).
_________________________________
Appeal from the Marion County Superior Court, Juvenile Division, Room 1,
No. 49D09-0406-JD-003091
The Honorable James W. Payne, Judge
_________________________________
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-0411-JV-000967
_________________________________
September 12, 2006
Sullivan, Justice.
In this delinquency case, A.E. was sentenced to a fixed term of 18 months. Reversing the
trial court, the Court of Appeals held that he was entitled to credit against that 18-month term for
the 99 days he was confined between the dates of his arrest and his dispositional hearing. In ac-
cordance with another case we decide today, J.D. v. State, we hold that the trial court was not
required to credit the time served in pre-disposition confinement against his determinate sen-
tence.
Background
On June 28, 2004, 15-year-old A.E. was arrested and alleged to be delinquent for having
committed an act that would be armed robbery, a Class B felony, if committed by an adult. A.E.
later signed an agreement admitting to the robbery allegation on July 20, 2004, in exchange for
the State’s dismissal of a charge of resisting law enforcement. The trial court accepted A.E.’s
plea agreement on October 4, 2004, and sentenced him to an 18-month determinate commitment
to the Department of Correction. A.E. was also ordered to complete anger-control classes, sub-
stance abuse counseling, individual counseling, and a vocational and/or G.E.D. program. The
trial court did not grant A.E. any credit for the 99 days he had already spent detained between his
arrest and sentencing. A.E. appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed both the trial court’s determination of A.E. as a delinquent
and his 18-month commitment. A.E. v. State, 829 N.E.2d 549 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). We summa-
rily affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals on both of these issues. Ind. Appellate Rule
58(A)(2). However, a divided court also found that A.E. was entitled to a credit of 99 days
against his determinant 18-month sentence for the time he spent detained awaiting disposition of
his case. Id. at 554. The State sought, and we granted, transfer. A.E. v. State, 2005 Ind. LEXIS
904 (Ind. 2005).
Discussion
The issue on which the Court of Appeals reversed is the same as that we address today in
J.D. v. State, No. 49S04-0508-JV-356, __ N.E.2d __, (Ind. Sept. 12, 2006). In that case, 15-
year-old J.D. was arrested and alleged to be a delinquent child for committing acts that, if com-
mitted by an adult, would constitute burglary, theft, and resisting law enforcement. He was con-
fined in the county juvenile detention center. Thirty-five days later, all of which J.D. spent in
confinement, he admitted to the act that would constitute burglary. The trial court ordered J.D.
2
to serve a one-year determinate sentence. J.D. then requested time-served credit for the 35 days
he was detained prior to sentencing. The trial court denied J.D.’s request, and the Court of Ap-
peals affirmed. J.D. v. State, 826 N.E.2d 146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), vacated, 841 N.E.2d 181
(Ind. 2005).
As such, the holding of the Court of Appeals in this case stands in direct conflict with its
decision in J.D. not to require a juvenile court to give credit to juvenile offenders for time served
while awaiting disposition of their cases. We resolve this conflict today in J.D. by holding that a
juvenile court is not required to give credit for the time a juvenile serves in pre-disposition con-
finement.
One of the reasons that the Court of Appeals gave in this case in support of its decision
was of constitutional dimension. Referring to article I, section 23, of the Indiana Constitution,
the Court of Appeals said, “Denying credit time to a juvenile who remains in juvenile court but
receives a determinate sentence to be served at the Department of Correction would appear to
create an unequal burden on children, thereby implicitly granting a special privilege or immunity
to adults. This arguably raises disparate treatment issues.” A.E., 829 N.E.2d at 554.
A.E. did not challenge his sentence on grounds that it violated article I, section 23, 1 and
in the absence of any claim by the parties, we decline to give the issue extended treatment. We
note, however, that the Court of Appeals, in a different context, has rejected the claim that differ-
ences between the juvenile and adult criminal laws and procedures create unconstitutional dispa-
rate treatment under article I, section 23. Gall v. State, 811 N.E.2d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), t-
rans. denied, 822 N.E.2d 977 (Ind. 2004); Person v. State, 661 N.E.2d 587 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996),
trans. denied (Ind. 1996).
1
The State did not respond to the constitutional concern of the Court of Appeals in its petition to transfer
and A.E. did not file a brief in reply to the State’s petition to transfer.
3
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court with respect to its denial of a credit to A.E. for
the 99 days of pre-disposition time spent in commitment. We summarily affirm the Court of
Appeals on the remaining issues.
Shepard, C.J., and Dickson, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.
4