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

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 17, 2018
• Docket: 02A03-1710-JV-2439
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Apr 17 2018, 8:49 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Thomas C. Allen Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Lyubov Gore Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

J.P., April 17, 2018 Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 02A03-1710-JV-2439 v. Appeal from the Allen Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Daniel G. Heath, Appellee-Petitioner. Judge The Honorable Michael T. Douglass, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 02D07-1708-JD-859

Najam, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-JV-2439 | April 17, 2018 Page 1 of 6 Statement of the Case [1] J.P. appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional order awarding wardship of him

to the Department of Correction (“DOC”). He presents a single issue for our

review, namely, whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it placed

him with the DOC. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On August 9, 2017, ten-year-old L.R. approached then seventeen-year-old J.P.

and asked him whether he had stolen L.R.’s bicycle. J.P. responded that he had

stolen the bicycle. J.P. then pulled a handgun from his waistband, loaded it

with a clip, and pointed it at L.R. J.P. quickly left the scene, and L.R. followed

him to a residence at 912 Hamilton Avenue in Ft. Wayne, where a friend of

J.P.’s lived. L.R. notified police, who found J.P. at the residence and

questioned him. Officers found the handgun J.P. had used in the confrontation

with L.R., which J.P. had hidden under a slide in the backyard of his friend’s

residence. The handgun was fully loaded, and officers later determined that it

had been stolen.

[3] On August 11, 2017, the State filed a petition alleging that J.P. was a delinquent

child because he had committed pointing a firearm, a Level 6 felony if

committed by an adult, and dangerous possession of a firearm, as a Class A

misdemeanor if committed by an adult. On August 17, J.P. admitted to the

pointing a firearm charge, and the State dismissed the possession charge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-JV-2439 | April 17, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Following a dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered J.P. committed to

the DOC. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [4] J.P. contends that the juvenile court erred when it ordered him to be committed

to the DOC rather than placed in a less restrictive setting. This court has

explained the way in which we review a juvenile court’s disposition as follows:

“The choice of a specific disposition for a delinquent child is within the discretion of the trial court, subject to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the child, the safety of the community, and a statutory policy of favoring the least harsh disposition. We may overturn the trial court’s disposition order only if we find that it has abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court’s decision 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.”

J.J. v. State, 925 N.E.2d 796, 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting A.M.R. v. State,

741 N.E.2d 727, 729 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)), trans. denied.

[5] Indiana Code Section 31-37-18-6 (2018) provides as follows:

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

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-JV-2439 | April 17, 2018 Page 3 of 6 (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.

[6] Here, in support of his contention on appeal, J.P. “does not contest the trial

court’s findings of fact, only whether the findings support the judgment.”

Appellant’s Br. at 16. In particular, J.P. maintains that a “120-day Court[-

]ordered detention at [Allen County Juvenile Center (“ACJC”)],” rather than

commitment to the DOC, would satisfy his need for a structured environment

and rehabilitation, as well as his need to “learn the logical and natural

consequences of delinquent behavior.” Id.; Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 30.

[7] However, as the State points out, this was J.P.’s “ninth juvenile contact in a

span of just four years,” and J.P. has not responded to prior lenient

dispositions. Appellee’s Br. at 12 (citing Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 16-20).

After four arrests in one year for leaving home without a parent’s permission, in

2015, J.P. was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for committing burglary, as a

Level 4 felony, if committed by an adult. The juvenile court placed J.P. at the

ACJC following that adjudication and ordered a psychological evaluation and

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-JV-2439 | April 17, 2018 Page 4 of 6 outpatient substance abuse treatment, but he continued his delinquent behavior,

including the instant pointing a firearm offense. At one point, J.P.’s mother

contacted police and reported that J.P. was “out of control and he was

threatening to shoot up the house and everyone in the home.” Tr. at 9-10.

Finally, it is notable that J.P. had accumulated only nine credits before

dropping out of high school in February 2017, and he has never been employed.

[8] In recommending that J.P. be placed at the DOC, the Probation Department

concluded as follows:

1. [J.P.] has been the recipient of informal and formal probation supervision. He has not responded to probation supervision. [J.P.]’s behavior is chronic and escalating.

2. There is not another known relative [who] can provide the structure and supervision that [J.P.] desperately needs.

3. [J.P.]’s behavior is not [related to] a known mental health diagnosis. His behavior is dangerous. [J.P.] needs intensive structure and supervision that can be provided in a controlled environment.

4. [J.P.] needs the structure and supervision of the Department of Correction[]. He presents as a clear danger to himself and the community.

Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 25. In light of the evidence, we hold that the

juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered that J.P. be

committed to the DOC.

[9] Affirmed.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-JV-2439 | April 17, 2018 Page 5 of 6 Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1710-JV-2439 | April 17, 2018 Page 6 of 6