J.G. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 10, 2019
• Docket: 19A-JV-181
• 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 Jul 10 2019, 10:42 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Megan Shipley Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Samantha M. Sumcad Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

J.G., July 10, 2019 Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-JV-181 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Marilyn A. Appellee-Petitioner. Moores, Judge The Honorable Gary Chavers, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49D09-1809-JD-1078

Najam, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-181 | July 10, 2019 Page 1 of 5 Statement of the Case [1] J.G. appeals the juvenile court’s award of guardianship over him to the

Department of Correction after the court adjudicated J.G. a delinquent on three

counts of armed robbery, each as a Level 3 felony when committed by an adult.

J.G. raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the juvenile court

abused its discretion when it awarded guardianship over him to the Department

of Correction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In mid-August of 2018, when he was fifteen years old, J.G. sold marijuana to

three other juveniles near Arsenal Tech High School. The three juveniles and

J.G. then began to smoke the marijuana together. Shortly thereafter, several

other juveniles joined J.G. and, with J.G.’s assistance, robbed the first three

juveniles at gunpoint. As the perpetrators were leaving the scene, J.G. told the

first three juveniles to not say anything to anyone “or they would be shot.”

Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 41 (capitalization removed). Indianapolis

Metropolitan Police Department officers arrested J.G. and his accomplices

shortly thereafter, and at least one of the victims changed schools out of fear of

being “kill[ed]” for having spoken “to the police.” Id. at 71.

[3] While detained and awaiting his denial hearing before the juvenile court, J.G.

had five reported incidents of poor behavior. One incident “was for refusal to

follow direction of staff.” Id. at 68. Another incident was for “an altercation

with another resident,” which resulted in J.G. “trying to get away from the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-181 | July 10, 2019 Page 2 of 5 other resident who wanted to fight him.” Id. Following a fact-finding hearing

in November of 2018, the juvenile court entered true findings on the State’s

allegations that J.G. had committed three acts of armed robbery, each as a

Level 3 felony when committed by an adult.

[4] Prior to the dispositional hearing, J.G. underwent a psychological evaluation

with Dr. Jim L. Dalton. Following that evaluation, Dr. Dalton stated that,

given the “serious and dangerous” actions underlying the juvenile court’s true

findings, “[i]t would be understandable if the Court deems it necessary to

remove [J.G.] from the community . . . .” Id. at 105. Further, J.G.’s

predispositional report stated that, when he was thirteen years old, J.G. had

been alleged to have committed battery, as a Class A misdemeanor when

committed by an adult, which allegation was closed without a fact-finding

hearing after J.G. failed to complete the offered services. The predispositional

report also stated that, on a different occasion when he was thirteen, J.G. had

been alleged to have committed battery, as a Class B misdemeanor when

committed by an adult, which allegation was also closed without a fact-finding

upon J.G.’s successful completion of offered services. The predispositional

report also identified J.G. as having a “[h]igh risk to re-offend.” Id. at 124.

[5] The State recommended that guardianship over J.G. be awarded to the

Department of Correction so that he would have a “secure and structured

setting” and no longer “pos[e] a threat to the community and himself.” Id. at

125. Following the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court adopted the State’s

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-181 | July 10, 2019 Page 3 of 5 recommendation and awarded guardianship over J.G. to the Department of

Correction. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [6] J.G. challenges the juvenile court’s order that he be placed in the wardship of

the Department of Correction. As the Indiana Supreme Court has explained:

The specific disposition of a delinquent is within the juvenile court’s discretion, to be guided by the following considerations: the safety of the community, the best interests of the child, the least restrictive alternative, family autonomy and life, freedom of the child, and the freedom and participation of the parent, guardian, or custodian. We reverse only for an abuse of discretion, namely a decision that 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.

K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind. 2006) (citations and quotation marks

omitted).

[7] We cannot say that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it awarded

guardianship over J.G. to the Department of Correction. J.G. participated in

the armed robbery of three other juveniles; he warned those juveniles not to tell

anyone about the robbery or they would be shot; one of his victims changed

schools out of fear of retaliation for having gone to the police; during J.G.’s

pretrial detention, he had five reported incidents of misbehavior, including

failing to follow directions and engaging in altercations with others; his

psychologist supported J.G.’s removal from the community based on J.G.’s

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-181 | July 10, 2019 Page 4 of 5 dangerous behavior; and the predispositional report assessed J.G. as having a

high risk of reoffending. We also note that, while no fact-finding hearings were

held on the State’s two prior battery allegations against J.G., those allegations

were dismissed only after mixed results from J.G. in offered services, which

suggests, in support of the juvenile court’s judgment here, that less-restrictive

options than placement with the Department of Correction would not be

successful.

[8] J.G.’s arguments on appeal are merely requests for this Court to disregard the

evidence most favorable to the juvenile court’s judgment and, instead, consider

only the evidence that J.G. considers favorable. But we are not at liberty to

reverse the juvenile court’s exercise of its discretion simply because we might

have reached a different result on the same evidence. See K.S., 849 N.E.2d at

544. J.G.’s argument on appeal is contrary to our standard of review, and,

under the proper standard, we cannot say that the juvenile court abused its

discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.

[9] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Robb, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-181 | July 10, 2019 Page 5 of 5