A.M. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 28, 2018
• Docket: 20A03-1709-JV-2121
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 28 2018, 11:18 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Nancy A. McCaslin Curtis T. Hill, Jr. McCaslin & McCaslin Attorney General Elkhart, Indiana Caroline G. Templeton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

A.M., February 28, 2018 Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A03-1709-JV-2121 v. Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit Court, Juvenile Division State of Indiana, The Honorable Deborah Domine, Appellee-Petitioner Magistrate The Honorable Michael A. Christofeno, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 20C01-1504-JD-139

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1709-JV-2121 | February 28, 2018 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] A.M. appeals the juvenile court’s order committing him to the custody of the

Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) following a violation of probation.

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In June 2015, A.M. was adjudicated a delinquent for battery resulting in bodily

injury, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. A.M. was placed on

probation, but he was not successful. Between June 2015 and May 2017, A.M.

was found to have violated the terms of his probation on four occasions. As a

result, multiple services were ordered, including: informal probation, formal

probation, electronic monitoring, therapeutic services, and residential-treatment

programs. See Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 189-90. A.M. was asked to leave

the first residential-treatment program because of his physical aggression. A.M.

was placed in a second residential-treatment program where he showed

“progress in all areas of his treatment . . . with the exception of his education.”

Tr. Vol. II p. 105. A.M. was enrolled in five classes but had a passing grade in

only two classes.

[3] In May 2017, A.M. was released from the residential-treatment program into

the custody of his mother. Two conditions of his release were that A.M. attend

both sessions of summer school and participate in transitional services. At the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1709-JV-2121 | February 28, 2018 Page 2 of 6 time of his release, A.M. was seventeen and had completed only four of the

forty credits needed for a high-school diploma.

[4] Approximately five weeks after his release, A.M. was charged with residential

entry, a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult, and resisting law enforcement,

a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. A.M. was removed from his

mother’s custody and placed in the juvenile-detention center. Because of these

new offenses, the State claimed that A.M. was in violation of his probation on

the original battery adjudication. The State also alleged that A.M. violated his

probation by failing to attend the first session of summer school. A hearing was

held on the new charges, and the juvenile court found that there was reasonable

doubt that A.M. committed residential entry but entered a finding for the State

on the resisting-law-enforcement charge. The juvenile court entered an

adjudication and closed the case.

[5] The juvenile court also found that he had violated the conditions of his

probation. During the adjudication hearing on the probation violation, the

juvenile probation department stated that since April 2015, A.M. had been

given multiple opportunities to be rehabilitated, but none of the services had

been successful. The probation department recommended that A.M. be

committed to the DOC, stressing that A.M. only does what is required of him

when he is in a structured environment, like the juvenile-detention center. For

example, A.M. failed to comply with the May 2017 order that he attend

summer school, but while he was at the juvenile-detention center he obtained

three credits toward his high-school diploma. A treatment provider who

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1709-JV-2121 | February 28, 2018 Page 3 of 6 worked with A.M. while he was in his mother’s custody agreed with the

probation department’s recommendation. The provider stated that A.M. was

not cooperative with services while in his mother’s care but that A.M. had been

compliant with services while at the juvenile-detention center.

[6] The juvenile court then stressed to A.M. the importance of obtaining his high-

school diploma: “You know, we pound on education because we know from

the research that education is a protective factor that makes it less likely you’re

going to commit a crime and this is all about community safety.” Tr. Vol. II p.

143. The juvenile court concluded that despite the probation department’s

efforts, A.M. continued to commit new criminal offenses. The court found that

it is in A.M.’s best interests to be placed in the custody of the DOC, that

reasonable efforts had been made to prevent A.M. from being removed from his

mother’s custody, that community resources had been exhausted, and that

placement in the DOC would give A.M. the structured environment he needed

for rehabilitation. Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 190-91.

[7] A.M. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [8] A.M. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it concluded

that he should be committed to the DOC. The disposition of a juvenile is

within the juvenile court’s discretion. K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind.

2006). We will reverse a juvenile disposition only upon a showing that the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1709-JV-2121 | February 28, 2018 Page 4 of 6 juvenile court abused its discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the

disposition is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances

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

therefrom.” Id.

[9] Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 guides the court’s disposition of a juvenile. In

part, the statute states, “If consistent with the safety of the community and the

best interest of the child, the juvenile court shall enter a dispositional decree that

is in the least restrictive (most family like) and most appropriate setting

available[.]” Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. A.M. claims that the juvenile court’s

disposition violates Section 31-37-18-6 because his behavior is not a risk to the

community and that his commitment to the DOC is not the least restrictive

option available. A.M. contends that he is no longer engaged in the behavior

that initially got him in trouble in April 2015 and that failing to attend summer

school does not present a risk to the community.

[10] The record shows that A.M. was given extensive opportunities to rehabilitate

himself. A.M. was offered and failed over twenty different services and

programs, including: informal probation, formal probation, electronic

monitoring, residential-treatment programs, and therapeutic services. While

A.M. was not engaging in the same behaviors that began his legal troubles, he

committed a new criminal offense and routinely failed to comply with his

conditions of probation. A.M. has demonstrated that he is unable to do what is

required of him without being in a heavily structured and supervised

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1709-JV-2121 | February 28, 2018 Page 5 of 6 environment. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered

A.M. into the custody of the DOC.

[11] Affirmed.

May, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1709-JV-2121 | February 28, 2018 Page 6 of 6