Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-335 | September 5, 2019 Page 1 of 7

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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Mark K. Phillips

Boonville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Caryn N. Szyper

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

X.H.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v. 

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff. 

September 5, 2019 

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-JV-335 

Appeal from the Warrick Circuit

Court

The Honorable Greg Granger

Trial Court Cause No. 

87C01-1706-JD-124 

Tavitas, Judge. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-335 | September 5, 2019 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] X.H. appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss the allegation that he is a

delinquent for an act that would be considered child molesting if committed by

an adult, a Level 4 felony, due to several alleged procedural errors. We dismiss.

Issue

[2] X.H. raises one issue on appeal; however, we raise, sua sponte, a separate issue

that we find to be dispositive. The issue before us is whether this Court has

jurisdiction over X.H.’s appeal.

Facts

[3] X.H. was born in September 2000. On July 30, 2016, the State alleged that

X.H. “did perform or submit to fondling or touching” seven-year-old K.K.

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 17. 

[4] The petition alleging delinquency was filed May 11, 2017. On July 5, 2017, the

juvenile court authorized the filing of the delinquency petition. The order

indicates that the juvenile court “considered the preliminary inquiry and the

evidence of probable cause.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 18.

[5] The trial court held the fact finding hearing on December 12, 2018. At the

hearing, X.H. orally requested the petition to be dismissed and orally moved for

certification of an interlocutory order, both of which the juvenile court denied.

[6] X.H. argued the juvenile court failed to commence the fact finding hearing prior

to X.H. turning eighteen, which X.H. alleges is required by Indiana Code
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-335 | September 5, 2019 Page 3 of 7

Section 31-9-2-13, and no waiver was filed before X.H.’s eighteenth birthday, 

which X.H. contends was required. Accordingly, X.H. moved for dismissal 

based upon lack of jurisdiction. The State countered that the case was filed 

before X.H. turned eighteen and, therefore, the juvenile court retained 

jurisdiction. The juvenile court disagreed with X.H.’s counsel’s interpretation 

of the law. 

[7] At the dispositional hearing on January 29, 2019, X.H.’s counsel continued to 

contest jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Additionally, the parties argued over 

whether an evaluation of X.H. would be necessary. After much debate, X.H.’s 

counsel requested the matter be stayed so X.H. could file his notice of appeal. 

The following discussion occurred: 

COURT: Okay, well the Court’s finding is that he is – that I’m 

Ordering that he receive a Diagnostic Evaluation. 

[X.H.’S COUNSEL]: * * * * * [We are] asking the Court to stay 

the sentence that’s now been imposed pending the Appeal, timely 

filing the Appeal and perfecting the Appeal. Obviously if we 

don’t perfect the Appeal then there’s nothing to stay. 

* * * * *

COURT: Okay, with that understanding then I’d be inclined to –

to stay the evaluation. 

[X.H.’S COUNSEL]: What I will do then, because we don’t as I 

explained to these people, the Notice of Appeal goes to the Court 

of Appeals, they (indiscernible) which I think is a little bit weird 

but that’s the way it is. What I think I will do is I will file the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-335 | September 5, 2019 Page 4 of 7

Motion to Stay before we file the Notice of Appeal today so that 

you – because I think once we file the Notice of Appeal you don’t 

have jurisdiction as an operation of law I think you lose 

jurisdiction.

Tr. Vol. II pp. 104-05. The juvenile court then advised X.H.’s parents of their 

right to appeal. The juvenile court entered an order titled “dispositional order,”

which concluded: 

The court now finds as follows: 

That the juvenile shall participate in a diagnostic 

evaluation to determine his treatment needs, if any. The 

Court stays this order pending the results of an appeal of 

this order. 

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 12. Appellant now appeals. 

Analysis

[8] X.H. argues that the juvenile court erred in denying X.H.’s motion to dismiss. 

Instead, however, we raise, sua sponte, whether this appeal is properly before 

us. Upon review of the record, X.H. indicated on the notice of appeal that this 

appeal is from a final judgment; however, there has not yet been a final 

dispositional decree that disposes of all issues in this case. Furthermore, the 

proper steps for filing an interlocutory appeal were not followed. Accordingly, 

this Court does not have jurisdiction over this case in its current procedural 

posture. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-335 | September 5, 2019 Page 5 of 7

[9] In juvenile delinquency cases, “appeals may be taken as provided by law.” Ind. 

Code § 31-32-15-1. Moreover, in juvenile hearings, “[i]t is after disposition that 

a final, appealable judgment exists. . . .” Matter of M.R., 452 N.E.2d 1085, 1089 

(Ind. Ct. App. 1983). “A final appealable order or judgment is one which 

disposes of all of the issues as to all of the parties and puts an end to the 

particular case.” F.E.H., Jr. v. State, 715 N.E.2d 1272, 1275 (Ind. Ct. App. 

1999) (quotations omitted). “An order of the court requiring something to be 

done or observed, but not determining the controversy, is an interlocutory 

order.” M.R., 452 N.E.2d at 1088. “Whether an order is a final judgment 

governs the appellate court’s subject matter jurisdiction.” Indy Auto Man, LLC v. 

Keown & Kratz, LLC, 84 N.E.3d 718, 719 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). 

[10] Indiana Rule of Appellate Procedure 2(H) defines judgments as final if: 

(1) it disposes of all claims as to all parties; 

(2) the trial court in writing expressly determines under Trial 

Rule 54(B) or Trial Rule 56(C) that there is no just reason for 

delay and in writing expressly directs the entry of judgment (i) 

under Trial Rule 54(B) as to fewer than all the claims or 

parties, or (ii) under Trial Rule 56(C) as to fewer than all the 

issues, claims or parties; 

(3) it is deemed final under Trial Rule 60(C); 

(4) it is a ruling on either a mandatory or permissive Motion to 

Correct Error which was timely filed under Trial Rule 59 or 

Criminal Rule 16; or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-335 | September 5, 2019 Page 6 of 7

(5) it is otherwise deemed final by law.

[11] The juvenile court’s order titled “dispositional order” stays the evaluation of

X.H. and the apparent subsequent treatment plan for X.H. pending the

evaluation. The order, however, is not a final dispositional decree. 

Specifically, the juvenile court’s order before us does not include “written 

findings and conclusions” in the dispositional decree as required by Indiana 

Code Section 31-37-18-9. The juvenile court’s order states: “That the juvenile 

shall participate in a diagnostic evaluation to determine his treatment needs, if 

any. The Court stays this order pending the results of an appeal of this order.” 

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 12 (emphasis added). 

[12] The juvenile court clearly was expecting X.H. to file an interlocutory appeal.

X.H., however, failed to file a motion for interlocutory appeal as required by

Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 14(B), which states: “An appeal 

may be taken from other interlocutory orders if the trial court certifies its order 

and the Court of Appeals accepts jurisdiction over the appeal.” We decline to 

accept this appeal as an interlocutory appeal due to X.H.’s counsel’s failure to 

proceed as required by Rule 14(B). 

[13] We acknowledge that juvenile matters should not be drawn out; however,

under these circumstances, we cannot properly consider the appeal as it is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-335 | September 5, 2019 Page 7 of 7

before us because it is not yet ripe for our review as a final judgment. We, 

accordingly, dismiss.1

 

Conclusion

[14] We do not have jurisdiction over X.H.’s appeal because a final dispositional

decree has not been entered. We dismiss.

[15] Dismissed.

Brown, J., and Altice, J., concur.

1 Although we dismiss this appeal, we note that X.H.’s brief included reference and argument to K.S. v. State, 

807 N.E.2d 769 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). In fact, X.H. heavily relies on this case in both his initial brief and 

reply brief. We remind counsel that K.S. was vacated and overturned in our Supreme Court’s landmark case 

K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538 (Ind. 2006). There, our Supreme Court expressly rejected the jurisdictional 

analysis and concluded that the juvenile’s arguments were procedural, and not jurisdictional. We encourage 

counsel, in the future, to carefully vet cited sources.