A.C., Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 30, 2018
• Docket: 92A04-1711-JV-2812
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Apr 30 2018, 8:44 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as CLERK precedent or cited before any court except for the Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, and Tax Court collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Anthony S. Churchward Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Anthony S. Churchward, P.C. Attorney General of Indiana Fort Wayne, Indiana Laura R. Anderson Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

A.C., Jr., April 30, 2018

Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 92A04-1711-JV-2812 v. Appeal from the Whitley Circuit Court. The Honorable Matthew J. State of Indiana, Rentschler, Judge. Appellee-Petitioner. Trial Court Cause No. 92C01-1703-JD-44

Sharpnack, Senior Judge

Statement of the Case [1] A.C., Jr. appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional order after he admitted to

violating the terms of his probation. We affirm.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A04-1711-JV-2812 | April 30, 2018 Page 1 of 6 Issue [2] A.C. raises one issue, which we restate as: whether the juvenile court abused its

discretion by placing A.C. in the custody of a juvenile facility in the Indiana

Department of Correction.

Facts and Procedural History [3] On March 11, 2017, seventeen year old A.C. smoked marijuana and then drove

off to meet friends. A police officer stopped A.C. and determined he showed

signs of intoxication. A.C. had a glass pipe and a small amount of marijuana in

the car.

[4] The State filed a petition alleging that A.C. was a juvenile delinquent because

he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would have constituted

operating a vehicle with a controlled substance in the body, a Class C

misdemeanor, and possession of paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. A.C.

later conceded that he committed the acts alleged in the State’s petition and was

a juvenile delinquent.

[5] During an April 24, 2017 hearing, the juvenile court ordered A.C. committed to

a juvenile facility in the Indiana Department of Correction, with the

commitment suspended to probation. A.C. would serve 120 days of his

probation on home detention, and the term of probation would last until A.C.’s

eighteenth birthday. The court informed A.C. that he was being placed on

“zero tolerance” probation, and any violation of the terms of probation would

result in A.C. being placed in “secure detention.” Tr. Vol. II, pp. 14-15.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A04-1711-JV-2812 | April 30, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Among other terms of A.C.’s probation, he was barred from committing

additional delinquent acts.

[6] A.C. finished his term of home detention but remained on probation. He

moved to Huntington County. On October 18, 2017, the juvenile court held a

detention hearing in A.C.’s case. The State alleged A.C. had violated the terms

of his probation by committing an act that, if committed by an adult, would

have constituted conversion. Specifically, he attempted to steal a pair of shoes

in Allen County. A.C. was incarcerated in the Allen County Juvenile Center.

[7] On October 30, 2017, the juvenile court held another hearing. A.C. admitted

he had violated the terms of his juvenile probation. The court ordered that

A.C. be placed in the custody of the Indiana Department of Correction. In the

dispositional order, the court noted residential placement and other local

alternatives “have been unsuccessful in deterring his delinquent activity.”

Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 59. This appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision [8] A.C. argues the juvenile court should have placed him in a county juvenile

facility rather than the Indiana Department of Correction’s juvenile facility.

Once a juvenile court determines a child is a delinquent, the court must hold a

dispositional hearing to consider, among other topics, “[a]lternatives for the

care, treatment, rehabilitation, or placement of the child.” Ind. Code § 31-37-

18-1 (1997). In deciding where a child should be placed, the court must

consider the following:

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A04-1711-JV-2812 | April 30, 2018 Page 3 of 6 If consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child, the juvenile court shall enter a dispositional decree that: (1) is: (A) in the least restrictive (most family like) and most appropriate setting available; and (B) close to the parents’ home, consistent with the best interest and special needs of the child; (2) least interferes with family autonomy; (3) is least disruptive of family life; (4) imposes the least restraint on the freedom of the child and the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian; and (5) provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian.

Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6 (1997). Without question, the statute requires the

juvenile court to select the least restrictive placement in most situations;

however, the statute also permits a court to impose a more restrictive placement

under certain circumstances. J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28-29 (Ind. Ct. App.

2008).

[9] Subject to these statutory considerations, we review the trial court’s choice of

disposition for an abuse of discretion. K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind.

2006). An abuse of discretion occurs when the juvenile court’s action is clearly

erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before

the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn

therefrom. D.B. v. State, 842 N.E.2d 399, 404-05 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A04-1711-JV-2812 | April 30, 2018 Page 4 of 6 [10] The juvenile court chose a more restrictive placement in sending A.C. to the

Department of Correction’s juvenile facility, and A.C. argues the evidence does

not support that decision. We disagree. Prior to the current case, A.C. had

been adjudicated a juvenile for acts that, if committed by an adult, would have

been two counts of possession of paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor,

possession of a synthetic drug, a Class A misdemeanor, and theft, a Class A

misdemeanor. Not counting the alleged act for which his probation was

revoked, A.C. has committed six acts in three years. It is particularly troubling

that A.C. continues to commit offenses involving controlled substances despite

repeated opportunities to reform.

[11] Further, the evidence supports the trial court’s determination that less restrictive

alternatives had failed to deter A.C. from misconduct. A.C. was sent to a

residential placement because of a prior juvenile case and had received

substance abuse treatment at that time. In the current case, he was placed on

zero tolerance probation instead of being sent to the Department of Correction,

only to commit a new offense (conversion) within six months. Neither of these

alternatives deterred A.C. from misconduct. Sending A.C. to the Department

of Correction was not against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances

before the trial court because the disposition was consistent with the safety of

the community and A.C.’s best interests. See C.C. v. State, 831 N.E.2d 215, 219

(Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (no abuse of discretion in sending juvenile to Department

of Correction; prior less restrictive placements had not deterred misbehavior

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A04-1711-JV-2812 | April 30, 2018 Page 5 of 6 and juvenile had been warned that further misconduct would result in

placement with Department).

Conclusion [12] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

[13] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and May, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 92A04-1711-JV-2812 | April 30, 2018 Page 6 of 6