MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing Apr 25 2019, 9:12 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Donald E.C. Leicht Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Kokomo, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Samantha M. Sumcad
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
E.P., April 25, 2019
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-JV-2189
v. Appeal from the Howard Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Lynn Murray,
Appellee-Petitioner Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
34C01-1511-JD-378
34C01-1512-JD-436
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-2189 | April 25, 2019 Page 1 of 7
[1] E.P. appeals the juvenile court’s modification of disposition order committing
him to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC), arguing that the juvenile
court erred by not placing him in a more rehabilitative environment. Finding no
error, we affirm.
Facts
[2] On November 9, 2015, then-fifteen-year-old E.P. was detained following a
traffic stop. The State filed a delinquency petition, alleging that E.P. was
delinquent for committing acts that would be Level 6 felony auto theft and
Class C misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle without a license had they
been committed by an adult. On December 16, 2015, pursuant to a plea
agreement, E.P. admitted to operating a motor vehicle without a license had it
been committed by an adult in exchange for dismissal of the auto theft
allegation. The juvenile court scheduled disposition of the matter for a later
date.
[3] However, on December 30, 2015, before disposition, the State alleged that E.P.
was delinquent for committing new acts that would amount to five counts of
Level 6 felony escape had they been committed by an adult. At the January 11,
2016, hearing for all the aforementioned charges, the juvenile court awarded
wardship of E.P. to either the DOC or any community-based correctional
facility for minors. E.P. was placed in the DOC.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-2189 | April 25, 2019 Page 2 of 7
[4] The following represents a timeline of the events that occurred after E.P. was
released from the DOC:
• On August 8, 2016, the juvenile court resumed jurisdiction over E.P.
after he was released from the DOC; it then placed him in the Re-entry
Program in a Shelter Care Unit of the Robert Kinsey Youth Center.
• On August 22, 2016, the juvenile court ordered E.P’s release from the
Youth Center and sent him to live with his grandmother on supervised
probation.
• On October 7, 2016, the juvenile court found probable cause that E.P.
was consuming illegal substances and that he had committed an act that
would be Class C misdemeanor illegal consumption of an alcoholic
beverage had it been committed by an adult. After E.P.’s November 14,
2016, review hearing, the juvenile court ordered E.P. to remain on
supervised probation with his grandmother.
• On December 12, 2016, E.P. failed to appear in court, and the juvenile
court ordered that E.P. be taken into custody. On December 14, 2016,
the juvenile court once again ordered E.P. to remain on supervised
probation with his grandmother.
• On January 23, 2017, E.P. again failed to appear in court, and the
juvenile court once more ordered that E.P. be taken into custody. The
juvenile court ordered that E.P. be re-placed in the Robert Kinsey Youth
Center, with a modification hearing set for a later date.
• On January 30, 2017, the probation department filed a verified Petition
for Modification of Disposition. E.P. admitted to his prior violations,
and on February 6, 2017, the juvenile court transferred E.P. to the Secure
Detention Unit of the Robert Kinsey Youth Center for thirty days.
Thereafter, E.P. would again be placed on supervised probation.
• On April 2, 2017, the probation department filed another verified
Petition for Modification of Disposition, and E.P. admitted to have
committed acts that would be Level 6 felony possession of
methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor possession of
paraphernalia had they been committed by an adult. Before the
modification of disposition hearing took place, the probation department
recommended that E.P. be placed in the DOC.
• At E.P.’s May 22, October 30, and December 11, 2017, review hearings,
the juvenile court ordered for E.P.’s continued placement in the Juvenile
Commitment Alternative Program (JCAP), along with continuing
probation thereafter.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-2189 | April 25, 2019 Page 3 of 7
• On March 5, 2018, the juvenile court found probable cause that E.P.
committed an act that would be Class B misdemeanor false informing
had it been committed by an adult and that he had left home without
permission.
• At E.P.’s March 16, 2018, modification of disposition hearing, the
juvenile court once again placed E.P. in the Secure Detention Unit at the
Robert Kinsey Youth Center for 120 days. At this same hearing, the
juvenile court found E.P. to be in contempt of court for spewing
obscenities and disrupting the proceedings.
• On May 18, 2018, the probation department filed another verified
Petition for Modification of Disposition on suspicion that E.P. was
possessing methamphetamine and syringes and that he committed an act
that would be battery had it been committed by an adult. E.P. admitted
to these charges but denied possessing any paraphernalia.
• At E.P.’s July 9, 2018, dispositional hearing, the juvenile court granted
the DOC wardship over E.P. and suspended supervised probation.
• On August 8, 2018, the probation department recommended that E.P. be
committed to the DOC. At E.P.’s August 13, 2018, modification of
disposition hearing, the juvenile court revoked E.P.’s probation and
placed him in the DOC.
E.P. now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[5] E.P. argues that the juvenile court erred when it placed him in the DOC.
Specifically, E.P. contends that he should have been placed in a more
rehabilitative environment as a modification of his disposition.
[6] We will reverse a juvenile court’s placement of a delinquent minor only if the
decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances
before it. C.C. v. State, 831 N.E.2d 215, 216-17 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). The choice
of a disposition for a juvenile is within the sound discretion of the juvenile
court, and it is accorded wide flexibility in making that judgment. E.L. v. State,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-2189 | April 25, 2019 Page 4 of 7
783 N.E.2d 360, 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). That disposition is subject, however,
to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the child, the community’s
safety, and the policy of favoring the least harsh disposition. Id.
[7] Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6(1) states that a juvenile court shall enter a
dispositional decree that is “in the least restrictive (most family like) and most
appropriate setting available; and . . . [is] consistent with the best interest and
special needs of the child[.]” E.P. argues that the DOC was not the most
appropriate setting available due to his substance abuse issues, and therefore,
this placement was not consistent with his best interest and special needs.
[8] While the goal of child placement within the juvenile court system is
rehabilitation and not punishment, R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2010), the ultimate decision to place E.P. in the DOC was still
appropriate, and the juvenile court did not err by doing so.
[9] When presented with multiple opportunities for rehabilitation over the course
of roughly three years, E.P. has shown few signs of progress at any placement.
When he was in court, E.P. showed a blatant disrespect for the system and
disrupted the proceedings by spewing obscenities. Whether he was in the
Secure Detention Unit of the Robert Kinsey Youth Center or the JCAP, E.P.
did not improve his behavior through the available programs. And when he was
on supervised probation, E.P. either committed some sort of delinquent act
such as illegal consumption of alcohol or possession of methamphetamine, fled
from home, or failed to appear at his required hearings. Moreover, this Court
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-2189 | April 25, 2019 Page 5 of 7
has already held that “violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to
revoke probation.” M.J.H. v. State, 783 N.E.2d 376, 377 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
Yet, the juvenile court chose time and time again to allow E.P. to remain on
supervised probation even after multiple violations. His constant run-ins with
the law and delinquency adjudications are further evidence that he has no
interest in rehabilitation through the current least restrictive resources available.
[10] E.P. disagrees, arguing that placement in the DOC was not the least restrictive
option for treatment since he suffers from substance abuse issues. In the past,
this Court has held that a delinquent juvenile’s placement with the DOC may
still be appropriate even if less restrictive alternatives are available. K.A. v. State,
775 N.E.2d 382, 386-87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). Given E.P.’s dangerous behavior
of consuming controlled substances, committing battery and possession of
paraphernalia, operating vehicles without a license, multiple violations of
probation, and tendencies to evade law enforcement and to flee his home,
placement in the DOC is an appropriate option. See J.B. v. State, 849 N.E.2d
714, 718-19 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (holding that juvenile’s placement in DOC
was warranted after violating probation, committing new offenses, and failing
to take advantage of prior opportunities for treatment). Furthermore, the
juvenile court has already given E.P. numerous chances for reform and could
have ordered placement in the DOC at an earlier time; nevertheless, the
juvenile court showed leniency and exhausted all options.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-2189 | April 25, 2019 Page 6 of 7
[11] Consistent with E.P.’s best interests and the safety of the surrounding
community, it was not erroneous for the juvenile court to modify E.P.’s
disposition by placing him in the DOC.
[12] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
Najam, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-JV-2189 | April 25, 2019 Page 7 of 7