MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 10 2019, 10:42 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Megan Shipley Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Samantha M. Sumcad
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
J.G., July 10, 2019
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-JV-181
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Marilyn A.
Appellee-Petitioner. Moores, Judge
The Honorable Gary Chavers,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49D09-1809-JD-1078
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-181 | July 10, 2019 Page 1 of 5
Statement of the Case
[1] J.G. appeals the juvenile court’s award of guardianship over him to the
Department of Correction after the court adjudicated J.G. a delinquent on three
counts of armed robbery, each as a Level 3 felony when committed by an adult.
J.G. raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the juvenile court
abused its discretion when it awarded guardianship over him to the Department
of Correction. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In mid-August of 2018, when he was fifteen years old, J.G. sold marijuana to
three other juveniles near Arsenal Tech High School. The three juveniles and
J.G. then began to smoke the marijuana together. Shortly thereafter, several
other juveniles joined J.G. and, with J.G.’s assistance, robbed the first three
juveniles at gunpoint. As the perpetrators were leaving the scene, J.G. told the
first three juveniles to not say anything to anyone “or they would be shot.”
Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 41 (capitalization removed). Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police Department officers arrested J.G. and his accomplices
shortly thereafter, and at least one of the victims changed schools out of fear of
being “kill[ed]” for having spoken “to the police.” Id. at 71.
[3] While detained and awaiting his denial hearing before the juvenile court, J.G.
had five reported incidents of poor behavior. One incident “was for refusal to
follow direction of staff.” Id. at 68. Another incident was for “an altercation
with another resident,” which resulted in J.G. “trying to get away from the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-181 | July 10, 2019 Page 2 of 5
other resident who wanted to fight him.” Id. Following a fact-finding hearing
in November of 2018, the juvenile court entered true findings on the State’s
allegations that J.G. had committed three acts of armed robbery, each as a
Level 3 felony when committed by an adult.
[4] Prior to the dispositional hearing, J.G. underwent a psychological evaluation
with Dr. Jim L. Dalton. Following that evaluation, Dr. Dalton stated that,
given the “serious and dangerous” actions underlying the juvenile court’s true
findings, “[i]t would be understandable if the Court deems it necessary to
remove [J.G.] from the community . . . .” Id. at 105. Further, J.G.’s
predispositional report stated that, when he was thirteen years old, J.G. had
been alleged to have committed battery, as a Class A misdemeanor when
committed by an adult, which allegation was closed without a fact-finding
hearing after J.G. failed to complete the offered services. The predispositional
report also stated that, on a different occasion when he was thirteen, J.G. had
been alleged to have committed battery, as a Class B misdemeanor when
committed by an adult, which allegation was also closed without a fact-finding
upon J.G.’s successful completion of offered services. The predispositional
report also identified J.G. as having a “[h]igh risk to re-offend.” Id. at 124.
[5] The State recommended that guardianship over J.G. be awarded to the
Department of Correction so that he would have a “secure and structured
setting” and no longer “pos[e] a threat to the community and himself.” Id. at
125. Following the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court adopted the State’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-181 | July 10, 2019 Page 3 of 5
recommendation and awarded guardianship over J.G. to the Department of
Correction. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[6] J.G. challenges the juvenile court’s order that he be placed in the wardship of
the Department of Correction. As the Indiana Supreme Court has explained:
The specific disposition of a delinquent is within the juvenile
court’s discretion, to be guided by the following considerations:
the safety of the community, the best interests of the child, the
least restrictive alternative, family autonomy and life, freedom of
the child, and the freedom and participation of the parent,
guardian, or custodian. We reverse only for an abuse of
discretion, namely a decision that 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.
K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind. 2006) (citations and quotation marks
omitted).
[7] We cannot say that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it awarded
guardianship over J.G. to the Department of Correction. J.G. participated in
the armed robbery of three other juveniles; he warned those juveniles not to tell
anyone about the robbery or they would be shot; one of his victims changed
schools out of fear of retaliation for having gone to the police; during J.G.’s
pretrial detention, he had five reported incidents of misbehavior, including
failing to follow directions and engaging in altercations with others; his
psychologist supported J.G.’s removal from the community based on J.G.’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-181 | July 10, 2019 Page 4 of 5
dangerous behavior; and the predispositional report assessed J.G. as having a
high risk of reoffending. We also note that, while no fact-finding hearings were
held on the State’s two prior battery allegations against J.G., those allegations
were dismissed only after mixed results from J.G. in offered services, which
suggests, in support of the juvenile court’s judgment here, that less-restrictive
options than placement with the Department of Correction would not be
successful.
[8] J.G.’s arguments on appeal are merely requests for this Court to disregard the
evidence most favorable to the juvenile court’s judgment and, instead, consider
only the evidence that J.G. considers favorable. But we are not at liberty to
reverse the juvenile court’s exercise of its discretion simply because we might
have reached a different result on the same evidence. See K.S., 849 N.E.2d at
544. J.G.’s argument on appeal is contrary to our standard of review, and,
under the proper standard, we cannot say that the juvenile court abused its
discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.
[9] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-181 | July 10, 2019 Page 5 of 5