Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-330 | May 10, 2024 Page 1 of 15

IN THE

Court of Appeals of Indiana

Johnny W. Brown,

Appellant-Defendant

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

May 10, 2024

Court of Appeals Case No.

23A-CR-330

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court

The Honorable Barbara Crawford, Senior Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49D28-2003-FC-9524

Opinion by Judge May

Judges Bailey and Felix concur.

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-330 | May 10, 2024 Page 2 of 15

[1] Johnny W. Brown appeals following his conviction of Class C felony child 

molesting.

1

 Brown raises three issues on appeal, but we find one dispositive.

We revise and restate that issue as whether retroactive application of a statute 

intended to cure a jurisdictional gap violates the ex post facto clause of the 

United States Constitution when the jurisdictional gap prevented the State from 

prosecuting the defendant for the alleged criminal act before the General 

Assembly enacted the statute. We reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History 

[2] On August 26, 2019, the day before Brown turned twenty-one years old, the 

State filed a delinquency petition in Case Number 49D09-1908-JD-1023 in the 

Marion Superior Court Juvenile Division alleging that between June 1, 2015, 

and August 31, 2016, Brown committed an act that would be Level 4 felony 

child molesting2 if committed by an adult. (See Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 20-

24.) On September 19, 2019, Brown filed an objection to the juvenile court’s 

exercise of subject matter and personal jurisdiction and moved for discharge of 

the State’s petition. The juvenile court held argument on Brown’s motion, and 

the court issued an order denying Brown’s motion on December 2, 2019. 

Brown requested leave to file an interlocutory appeal, but the juvenile court 

denied his motion. 

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b) (2007).

2 Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b) (2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-330 | May 10, 2024 Page 3 of 15

[3] On December 19, 2019, the State filed a motion pursuant to Indiana Code 

section 31-30-3-2 and Indiana Code section 31-30-3-5 for the court to waive 

juvenile jurisdiction. In its motion, the State asserted:

4. That said alleged offense(s) is/are heinous or aggravated.

5. That said alleged offense(s) is/are part of a repetitive pattern of 

delinquent acts . . .

* * * * *

11. That said child was at least sixteen (16) years of age at the 

time of the alleged offense(s).

12. State argues it would not be in the best interests of said child 

and of the safety and welfare of the community for said child to 

remain within the juvenile justice system. 

(App. Vol. 2 at 94-95.) The juvenile court held a hearing on the State’s motion 

on March 2, 2020, and subsequently granted the State’s motion.

[4] On March 6, 2020, the State filed an information in the Marion Superior Court 

Criminal Division alleging that between July 1, 2013, and June 30, 2014, 

Brown committed Class C felony child molesting or that between July 1, 2014, 

and June 30, 2015, he committed Level 4 felony child molesting.3

 The State 

3 The State never alleged that Brown committed more than one act of child molestation. The State initially 

divided the charges because the victim was uncertain about the exact date of the offense and the potential 

timespan included a period spanning both before and after the 2014 revision of the criminal code took effect.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-330 | May 10, 2024 Page 4 of 15

later amended the charging information to allege only that Brown committed 

Class C felony child molesting between July 1, 2013, and February 28, 2016.4

 

The criminal court held a jury trial beginning on November 14, 2022, and the 

jury returned a verdict finding Brown guilty.

[5] On December 15, 2022, Brown filed a motion to correct error challenging the 

criminal court’s jurisdiction. Brown asserted that his case fell “within an 

indeterminate and undefined jurisdiction gap between juvenile and adult 

jurisdiction.” (App. Vol. 3 at 3.) He argued that, because he was over twentyone years old on the date of the waiver hearing, the juvenile court lacked 

subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, Brown contended, the criminal court 

never acquired jurisdiction over him, and he asked the criminal court to dismiss 

the case. The State filed a response to Brown’s motion to correct error on 

January 13, 2023, and the criminal court held argument on Brown’s motion to 

correct error on January 20, 2023. The criminal court denied Brown’s motion 

and then held his sentencing hearing. The criminal court sentenced Brown to a 

4 The State’s amended charging information is unusual because prior to July 1, 2014, the criminal code 

divided felony offenses into four classes, and after July 1, 2014, the criminal code divided felony offenses into 

six levels. In its motion to amend the charging information, the State explained: 

The State is moving to amend the charging information to consolidate into one count. 

The time line of this case spans across the 2014 code change. Therefore, the State has 

agreed to only ask for the C Felony conviction since the evidence cannot say whether it 

happened before or after 2014 and the credit time would benefit the defendant as opposed 

to it being a level 4 felony.

(App. Vol. 2 at 168.) Nonetheless, given the outcome of this appeal, we need not address the propriety of the 

State’s decision to charge Brown with a Class C felony when the offense date was potentially after July 1, 

2014.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-330 | May 10, 2024 Page 5 of 15

term of four years. The criminal court gave Brown credit for time served and 

suspended the remainder of his sentence to probation. 

Discussion and Decision 

[6] Brown asserts the juvenile court lost subject matter jurisdiction when he turned 

twenty-one years old and, therefore, the juvenile court lacked the authority to 

transfer his case to the criminal court. Brown initially challenged the juvenile 

court’s jurisdiction before the juvenile court, and he renewed his jurisdictional 

challenge through a motion to correct error filed after his trial in criminal court.

“Lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time[.]” B.P. Amoco 

Corp. v. Szymanski, 808 N.E.2d 683, 686 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), reh’g denied, trans. 

denied. Our standard of review following the denial of a motion to dismiss for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction depends upon what occurred before the trial 

court:

That is, the standard of review is dependent upon: (i) whether the 

trial court resolved disputed facts; and (ii) if the trial court 

resolved disputed facts, whether it conducted an evidentiary 

hearing or ruled on a paper record. If the facts before the trial 

court are not in dispute, then the question of subject matter 

jurisdiction is purely one of law. Under those circumstances no 

deference is afforded the trial court’s conclusion because 

appellate courts independently, and without the slightest 

deference to the trial court determination, evaluate those issues 

they deem to be questions of law.

Scheub v. Van Kalker Fam. Ltd. P’ship, 991 N.E.2d 952, 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)

(internal citations omitted). Here, the trial court was not required to resolve 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-330 | May 10, 2024 Page 6 of 15

any disputed jurisdictional facts, and therefore, our standard of review is de 

novo. See, e.g., Terry v. Cmty. Health Network, Inc., 17 N.E.3d 389, 392 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2014) (reviewing dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under de 

novo standard because the facts were not in dispute and the only question was

application of law to the facts).

[7] “A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction presents a threshold 

question concerning the trial court’s power to act. Actions taken by a court 

lacking jurisdiction are void.” Hood’s Gardens, Inc. v. Young, 976 N.E.2d 80, 83 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (internal citation omitted). “The challenger of subject 

matter jurisdiction has the burden of establishing lack of jurisdiction.” Brenner 

v. All Steel Carports, Inc., 122 N.E.3d 872, 878 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Brown 

contends the juvenile court lost subject matter jurisdiction over his case when 

he turned twenty-one. He likens his case to the facts underlying our Indiana 

Supreme Court’s opinion in D.P. v. State, 151 N.E.3d 1210 (Ind. 2020). 

[8] In D.P., our Indiana Supreme Court consolidated two appeals that “present[ed] 

strikingly similar facts and concern[ed] a single issue: a juvenile court’s ability 

to waive an individual who is twenty-one or older into adult criminal court.” 

Id. at 1212. In the first case, the State filed a petition in January 2019 in 

juvenile court against D.P., who was then twenty-three years old, alleging that 

when D.P. was sixteen years old he committed an act that would be Class B 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-330 | May 10, 2024 Page 7 of 15

felony child molesting5 if committed by an adult. Id. In the other case, the 

State filed a petition against N.B., who was then twenty-one years old, alleging 

that when he was between the ages of twelve and fifteen, he committed an act 

that would be Class B felony child molesting if committed by an adult. Id. In 

both cases, the State filed a motion asking the juvenile court to waive 

jurisdiction and transfer the matter to adult criminal court. Id. D.P. moved to 

dismiss the delinquency petition and argued the juvenile court lacked subject 

matter jurisdiction. Id. The juvenile court denied D.P.’s petition, and D.P. 

pursued an interlocutory appeal. Id. N.B. also moved to dismiss the 

delinquency petition based on the juvenile court’s lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. Id. The juvenile court granted N.B.’s petition, and the State 

appealed. Id. at 1212-13. 

[9] Our Indiana Supreme Court explained that juvenile courts possess limited 

subject matter jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction over cases only when 

permitted by statute. Id. at 1213. The Court noted that “a juvenile court has 

‘exclusive’ subject matter jurisdiction over proceedings in which a ‘child’ is 

alleged to be delinquent.” Id. (quoting Ind. Code § 31-30-1-1(1) (2020)). The 

Court then observed:

The term “child” for juvenile law purposes, is defined as (1) a 

person less than eighteen; (2) a person eighteen, nineteen, or 

twenty and who either is charged with a delinquent act 

5 Ind. Code 35-42-4-3(a) (2007).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-330 | May 10, 2024 Page 8 of 15

committed before the age of eighteen or has been adjudicated a 

child in need of services before eighteen; or (3) a person less than 

twenty-one and who has allegedly committed what would be 

murder when less than eighteen.

Id. at 1213-14 (quoting Ind. Code § 31-9-2-13(d) (2019)). The Court explained 

that “a juvenile court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate 

individuals who are twenty-one or older, like D.P. and N.B., delinquent.” Id. at 

1214. The Court then moved on to the related question of whether the juvenile 

court still possessed the limited authority to waive D.P. and N.B. into adult 

criminal court. Id. The Court looked to Indiana Code sections 31-30-3-5 (2014)

and 31-30-3-6 (1997), the two statutes authorizing juvenile court waiver into 

adult criminal court, and noted that the waiver statutes applied only if the 

alleged offender is a “child.” Id. at 1216. The Court then held that the juvenile 

courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to waive D.P. and N.B. into adult 

criminal court “because neither fit the definition of a ‘child’ at the time their 

respective delinquency petitions were filed.” Id. at 1217. 

[10] Two years later, our Indiana Supreme Court reiterated its holding in D.P. and 

addressed the question of whether the State could file charges directly in 

criminal court if the State did not learn of the alleged molestation until after the 

alleged offender turned twenty-one: 

In 2020, we held juvenile courts lose jurisdiction once an alleged 

delinquent child reaches twenty-one years of age. But we left 

open the question whether the State can file criminal charges 

against a person who committed the charged conduct before 

turning eighteen but is no longer a child under the juvenile code. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-330 | May 10, 2024 Page 9 of 15

Under the governing statutes, a child’s delinquent act does not 

ripen into a crime when the child ages out of the juvenile system. 

The result is that neither the juvenile court nor the circuit court 

has jurisdiction here. In short, this case falls within a 

jurisdictional gap only the legislature can close.

State v. Neukam, 189 N.E.3d 152, 152-53 (Ind. 2022). 

[11] Brown was over the age of twenty-one when the juvenile court held an 

evidentiary hearing regarding whether to waive Brown to adult criminal court.

Brown was born on August 27, 1998, and the State filed its delinquency petition 

against Brown on August 26, 2019, the day before Brown turned twenty-one. 

The waiver hearing occurred on March 2, 2020. Pursuant to the waiver and 

jurisdiction statutes in effect at the time of Brown’s waiver hearing, Brown fell 

into the jurisdictional gap described in D.P. and Neukam. Neither the juvenile 

court nor the adult criminal court possessed jurisdiction to try Brown when he 

was twenty-one for an alleged act of child molestation that occurred when 

Brown was between fourteen and seventeen years old. See, e.g., State v. 

Pemberton, 186 N.E.3d 647, 655 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (holding neither juvenile 

court nor adult criminal court had jurisdiction over twenty-three-year-old 

defendant for alleged act of child molestation that occurred when defendant 

was sixteen), trans. denied. 

[12] Despite this jurisdictional gap, the State contends legislative amendments to 

Indiana Code section 31-30-1-4 and Indiana Code section 31-37-1-2, which 

became effective on July 1, 2023, apply retroactively, to allow the criminal 

court to exercise jurisdiction over Brown. During the 2023 legislative session, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-330 | May 10, 2024 Page 10 of 15

the General Assembly enacted Public Law 115-2023. Section seven of Public 

Law 115-2023 amended Indiana Code section 31-30-1-4 to include a subsection 

(d), which states:

(d) A court having adult criminal jurisdiction, and not a juvenile 

court, has jurisdiction over a person who is at least twenty-one 

(21) years of age for an alleged offense:

(1) committed while the person was a child; and

(2) that could have been waived under IC 31-30-3.

Section nine of Public Law 115-2023 modified Indiana Code section 31-37-1-2

to provide:

A child commits a delinquent act if, before becoming eighteen 

(18) years of age, the child commits a misdemeanor or felony 

offense, except for an act committed by a person over which the 

juvenile court lacks jurisdiction under IC 31-30-1.

Thus, under the amended statutes, the State may file charges directly in an 

adult criminal court against an individual who is over twenty-one years old for 

acts the individual committed before turning eighteen years old if the juvenile 

court could have waived jurisdiction over the individual had the State brought 

the charges while the individual was still under twenty-one years old. 

[13] “Absent explicit language to the contrary, statutes generally do not apply 

retroactively. But there is a well-established exception for remedial statutes.” 

N.G. v. State, 148 N.E.3d 971, 973 (Ind. 2020) (internal citation omitted). A 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-330 | May 10, 2024 Page 11 of 15

remedial statute is one that cures a defect or mischief in the prior law. Id. 

Nevertheless, even when the General Assembly passes a remedial statute, 

“retroactivity is permissive, not mandatory.” Id. “[W]e employ a two-step 

analysis to determine whether an otherwise prospective statute applies 

retroactively. We first decide whether the relevant law is remedial. If so, we 

then consider whether retroactive application would effectuate the statute’s 

legislative purpose.” Id. at 974. If the statute’s legislative purpose is served by 

retroactive application of the statute, a strong and compelling reason exists to 

apply the statute retroactively. Id. We will therefore apply it retroactively 

unless doing so would violate a vested right or constitutional guaranty. Id. at 

974 n.1. 

[14] The State asserts that the July 1, 2023, amendments to Indiana Code section 31-

30-1-4 and Indiana Code section 31-37-1-2 were remedial in nature because 

they were intended to cure “the jurisdictional gap . . . whereby some serious 

violations of the criminal law, including murder and child molesting, could not 

be prosecuted in any court even though the crimes were discovered before the 

statute of limitations for the crimes had expired.” (Appellee’s Br. at 16.) The 

State also argues that retroactive application will serve the statute’s legislative 

purpose because retroactive application will prevent “some juvenile offenders, 

through the luck of the draw,” from escaping liability. (Id. at 19.) In addition, 

the State contends that “giving retroactive effect to the amended statutes would 

not violate a vested right or constitutional guarantee.” (Id. at 20.) 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-330 | May 10, 2024 Page 12 of 15

[15] In response, Brown asserts that retroactive application of the amended statutes 

violates his federal constitutional guarantee to be free of ex post facto laws. 

Article 1, section 10 of the United States Constitution states: “No State shall . . . 

pass any . . . ex post facto law[.]” Brown directs us to the United States 

Supreme Court’s discussion of this constitutional provision in Stogner v. 

California, 123 S. Ct. 2446 (2003). Stogner concerned a law California passed in 

1993 that allowed the State to prosecute individuals for child sex abuse crimes 

“where ‘[t]he limitation period specified in [prior statutes of limitations] has 

expired’—provided that (1) a victim has reported an allegation of abuse to the 

police, (2) ‘there is independent evidence that clearly and convincingly 

corroborates the victim’s allegation,’ and (3) the prosecution is begun within 

one year of the victim’s report.” Id. at 2449 (brackets in original) (quoting Cal. 

Penal Code § 803(g) (2003)). 

[16] In 1998, California charged Marion Stogner with two counts of lewd acts 

against a child. Id. California alleged that the acts occurred between 1955 and 

1973. Id. The statute of limitations period at the time the crimes were allegedly 

committed was three years, but California did not initiate its prosecution of 

Stogner until decades after the crimes were alleged to have been committed. Id. 

Stogner argued his prosecution violated the United States Constitution’s 

prohibition against ex post facto laws. Id. 

[17] In evaluating Stogner’s challenge, the United States Supreme Court noted that 

the ex post facto clause was enacted to counteract certain abuses by the English 

Parliament during the colonial era, including inflicting punishment on a person 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-330 | May 10, 2024 Page 13 of 15

when the person was not previously liable to any punishment or inflicting a 

greater punishment than the law assigned at the time the offense was 

committed. Id. at 2450. Ultimately, the Court held that the 1993 law as 

applied to Stogner violated the United States Constitution’s prohibition against 

ex post facto laws. Id. at 2461. The Court explained: 

After (but not before) the original statute of limitations had 

expired, a party such as Stogner was not ‘liable to any 

punishment.’ California’s new statute therefore ‘aggravated’ 

Stogner’s alleged crime, or made it ‘greater than it was, when 

committed,’ in the sense that, and to the extent that, it ‘inflicted 

punishment’ for past criminal conduct that (when the new law 

was enacted) did not trigger any such liability. 

Id. at 2451 (quoting Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 389-90 (1798)). The Court 

further observed that “to resurrect a prosecution after the relevant statute of 

limitations has expired is to eliminate a currently existing conclusive 

presumption forbidding prosecution, and thereby to permit conviction on a 

quantum of evidence where that quantum, at the time the new law is enacted, 

would have been legally insufficient.” Id. at 2452. 

[18] Brown argues that “[o]nce Brown turned twenty-one (2019) and had not been 

waived to adult criminal court, he no longer faced liability for any punishment 

for an act of child molest he is alleged to have committed while still a child.” 

(Appellant’s Reply Br. at 8.) Thus, Brown argues, if the 2023 amendments 

were to retroactively apply to him, it “would create liability where none existed 

when the new law was enacted, and thus would violate . . . the federal ex post 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-330 | May 10, 2024 Page 14 of 15

facto clause.” (Id.) We agree. As we explained above, the juvenile court lost 

jurisdiction when Brown turned twenty-one, and the criminal court lacked 

jurisdiction at that time to try Brown for behavior that he allegedly committed 

as a juvenile. Therefore, just as Stogner was free of criminal liability after the 

statute of limitations period expired, Brown was free of liability when he turned 

twenty-one because no court possessed jurisdiction. Retroactive application of 

the 2023 amendments would impose punishment on Brown for an act for which 

he was not subject to punishment when the amendments were enacted, and this 

is prohibited by the United States Constitution.6

 See Stogner, 123 S. Ct. at 2461; 

see also Swopshire v. State, 177 N.E.3d 98, 104-05 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (holding 

State could not revive time barred prosecution through retroactive application 

of a statute that extended the statute of limitations period), trans. denied. We

therefore reverse Brown’s conviction and remand with instructions for the trial 

court to dismiss the case. See, e.g., K.C.G. v. State, 156 N.E.3d 1281, 1285 (Ind. 

2020) (vacating juvenile delinquency adjudication and remanding with

instructions for juvenile court to dismiss case because of a lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction). 

6 Brown also asserts that retroactive application of the 2023 amendments violates the Indiana Constitution. 

See Ind. Cost. Art. I, § 24 (“No ex post facto law . . . shall ever be passed.”). However, because we conclude 

that retroactive application of the amendments is prohibited by the United States Constitution, we need not 

decide whether the application also violates our state constitution. See, e.g., Westmoreland v. State, 965 N.E.2d 

163, 165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (addressing only the federal constitutional argument because it was 

dispositive). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-330 | May 10, 2024 Page 15 of 15

Conclusion 

[19] When Brown turned twenty-one years old, his case fell into the jurisdictional 

gap our Indiana Supreme Court identified in D.P. and Neukam. While statutes 

that became effective on July 1, 2023, cured this jurisdictional gap, retroactive 

application of these statutes to Brown would violate his right under the United 

States Constitution to be free of ex post facto laws. Therefore, we reverse 

Brown’s conviction and remand with instructions for the trial court to dismiss.

[20] Reversed and remanded. 

Bailey, J., and Felix, J., concur.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Jan B. Berg

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Theodore E. Rokita

Indiana Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

Ellen H. Meilaender

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana