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