A.C., Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

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