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

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 10, 2018
• Docket: 18A-JV-867
• 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 Oct 10 2018, 11:27 am

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

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Arturo Rodriguez II Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Rodriguez Law, P.C. Attorney General of Indiana Lafayette, Indiana Monika Prekopa Talbot Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

P.P., October 10, 2018 Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-JV-867 v. Appeal from the Clinton Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Bradley K. Mohler, Appellee-Petitioner. Judge Trial Court Cause Nos. 12C01-1801-JD-8 12C01-1803-JD-96

Barteau, Senior Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-867 | October 10, 2018 Page 1 of 8 Statement of the Case [1] P.P. appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional order. We affirm.

Issue [2] P.P. presents one issue for our review, which we restate as: whether the

juvenile court abused its discretion by awarding wardship of P.P. to the

Department of Correction (DOC).

Facts and Procedural History [3] On January 16, 2018, the State filed a delinquency petition in cause number

12C01-1801-JD-8 (JD-8) alleging that P.P. had committed the offenses of theft 1 of a firearm, a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult, four counts of

unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle, all Class B misdemeanors if committed 2 by an adult, and three counts of theft, all Class A misdemeanors if committed 3 by an adult. The following day, P.P. admitted to the allegations. The juvenile

court entered a true finding to the charge of theft of a firearm as a Level 6

felony and placed P.P. on supervised probation for twelve months and on home

detention for ninety days. While on home detention, P.P. was only allowed to

go to probation appointments, community correction appointments,

1 Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2 (2017).

2 Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2.7(d) (2014). 3 Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-867 | October 10, 2018 Page 2 of 8 counseling, work, school, church, and doctor appointments without prior

approval of the probation department. Specific conditions of P.P.’s probation

included attendance of weekly probation appointments, completion of seventy-

five hours of community service at a not-for-profit agency, attendance and

participation in moral reconation therapy, individual counseling and group

counseling, drug screens, curfew of 8:00 p.m., no contact with J.M., gang

members or anyone on probation, attendance at school with no problems and

maintenance of passing grades, no possession or use of any weapons, and

payment of fees and restitution.

[4] On February 6, 2018, the State filed a petition alleging that P.P. had violated

the terms of his supervision by cutting off his house arrest monitor, taking

unauthorized leave at 3:12 a.m., and failing to pay fees and restitution. On

March 15, 2018, the State filed an amended petition alleging all of the

violations contained in the February 6 petition and adding further violations of

taking additional unauthorized leave, testing positive for THC and

Benzodiazepines, committing the offense of escape by removing his ankle

monitor and leaving his residence on March 14, and snorting pills. This

petition was soon followed by a second amended petition filed on March 19

alleging, in addition to all of the prior allegations, that P.P. had violated the

terms of his supervision again by cutting off his ankle bracelet and leaving his

residence, thereby committing the offense of escape on March 17. P.P.’s

commission of the offense of escape on March 14, also resulted in the filing of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-867 | October 10, 2018 Page 3 of 8 an additional delinquency petition under cause number 12C01-1803-JD-96 (JD-

96).

[5] At a hearing on these matters, P.P. admitted to committing the offense of

escape and to violating his probation based on the escape and the unauthorized

leaves. The juvenile court awarded wardship of P.P. to the Indiana Boys’

School in the DOC. P.P. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [6] P.P. contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it awarded

guardianship of him to the DOC because less restrictive options were available.

Specifically, P.P. argues that he should have been continued on home detention 4 and given “more counseling.” Appellant’s Br. p. 12.

[7] The choice of the specific disposition of a juvenile adjudicated to be delinquent

is a matter within the sound discretion of the juvenile court. J.S. v. State, 881

N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). This discretion is subject to the statutory

considerations of the welfare of the child, the safety of the community, and the

4 P.P. additionally claims that the trial court erred by failing to show “how the safety of the community was at risk.” Appellant’s Br. p. 11. We note the statute is not written to require such a showing; rather, the statute provides that the juvenile is required to be placed in the least restrictive setting only if it is consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child. See K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (quoting Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6), trans. denied. The statute is written in the conjunctive; therefore, both factors must be satisfied in order to place a juvenile in the least restrictive setting. However, the converse is not true—one need not show the absence of both factors to place a juvenile in a more restrictive setting. Thus, as is the situation in this case, negating just one of the factors is sufficient to place the juvenile in a more restrictive setting.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-867 | October 10, 2018 Page 4 of 8 policy of favoring the least harsh disposition. Id. We will reverse a juvenile

disposition only for an abuse of discretion, which 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

inferences drawn therefrom. Id. Accordingly, the juvenile court is accorded

wide latitude and great flexibility in its dealings with juveniles. Id.

[8] Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 (1997) sets forth the following factors a

juvenile court must consider when entering a dispositional decree:

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

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-867 | October 10, 2018 Page 5 of 8 (5) provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by the child’s parent, guardian, or custodian.

Although this section requires the juvenile court to select the least restrictive

placement, that requirement is limited by the safety of the community and the

best interest of the child. D.B. v. State, 842 N.E.2d 399, 405 (Ind. Ct. App.

2006). Thus, the statute recognizes that, in certain situations, the best interest

of the child is better served by a more restrictive placement. Id. at 406.

[9] Here, before being committed to the DOC, P.P. was given the chance to

conform his behavior, but he squandered that opportunity. After admitting to

what would have been a Level 6 felony theft of a firearm and dismissal of seven

other charges in JD-8, P.P. was placed on home detention for ninety days and

supervised probation for twelve months. The court presented P.P. with some

incentive to alter the wayward path he was on by providing that his probation

could be shortened or modified to unsupervised, depending on his compliance,

and ordered him to attend counseling. In addition, in its disposition order the

court warned P.P. that any new charges may result in his placement at the

DOC.

[10] Following the court’s disposition order of January 17, P.P. was placed on

probation and home detention. Scarcely more than a week later, on January

26, P.P. cut off his home detention bracelet. Three days later, without

authorization to do so, he left his residence at 3:12 a.m. Again, on March 10,

P.P. left his residence without authorization, and, three days later, he tested

positive for THC and Benzodiazepines. The following day, on March 14, he Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-867 | October 10, 2018 Page 6 of 8 committed the offense of escape by removing his home detention bracelet and

leaving his residence. On this occasion, P.P.’s father advised the probation

department that he caught P.P. snorting pills, and then P.P. left the residence.

When found and returned home, P.P. stated that “life is unfair.” Appellant’s

App. Vol. II, p. 52. Just three days later, P.P. again committed the offense of

escape by cutting off his home detention bracelet and leaving his residence.

[11] In announcing its decision, the juvenile court observed that P.P. “did well for a

little bit and then kinda got spiraling out of control again.” Tr. p. 14. The court

pointed out that P.P.’s offenses are felonies, for which P.P. can be sent to adult

court and which will hinder him in obtaining a job and other opportunities.

The court explained that the purpose of juvenile court is to help P.P. “get back

on track and make good decisions before [he] become[s] an adult.” Id. The

court further stated that it “would love to put [P.P.] back on home detention”

but that it did not believe that was in P.P.’s best interest because “it wasn’t

sinking into [sic] [him].” Id. at 14-15. In placing P.P. at the DOC, the court

explained that the length of the wardship was largely dependent on P.P.’s

progress, behavior, and attitude. The court also told P.P., “You know,

ultimately we want you back out cause we want you in the community with

your family.” Id. at 15.

[12] The nature of the juvenile process is rehabilitation and aid to the juvenile to

direct his or her behavior so that he or she will not later become a criminal.

S.C. v. State, 779 N.E.2d 937, 940 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. Moreover,

as noted, by its terms Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 recognizes that while

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-867 | October 10, 2018 Page 7 of 8 less restrictive placement options may be available, in certain situations a less

restrictive placement is not consistent with the best interest of the child. P.P.

was sixteen at the time of disposition and clearly in need of rehabilitation while

still a juvenile and before his delinquent conduct becomes criminal, especially

given that these adjudications involved felony charges. P.P.’s continuing

behavior during the short time he was on probation and home detention,

especially after a seemingly compliant period, indicated that he is unable or

unwilling to abide by less restrictive options and placed successful rehabilitation

in serious jeopardy. Thus, given the nature of these offenses, P.P.’s inability to

abide by the rules, and the court’s thoughtful consideration of its options, this is

a situation in which commitment to a less restrictive environment than DOC is

not in the best interest of P.P. or of the community.

Conclusion [13] For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its

discretion in committing P.P. to the DOC.

[14] Affirmed.

Crone, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-867 | October 10, 2018 Page 8 of 8