MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jan 31 2020, 10:10 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Mark F. James Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Anderson, Agostino & Keller P.C. Attorney General of Indiana
South Bend, Indiana
Angela N. Sanchez
Assistant Section Chief
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
J.S., January 31, 2020
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-JV-2147
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Probate
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Graham C.
Appellee-Petitioner Polando, Magistrate
The Honorable Jason A.
Cichowicz, Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
71J01-1801-JD-020
71J01-1804-JD-106
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2147 | January 31, 2020 Page 1 of 4
[1] On March 28, 2018, J.S. was adjudged delinquent for committing an act that
would have been theft had it been committed by an adult. He was placed on
probation. On April 27, 2018, the State filed a new petition alleging
delinquency for acts that would have been Class A misdemeanor theft and
Class B misdemeanor false informing had they been committed by an adult.
J.S. admitted to the allegations and, following a hearing, the juvenile court
modified and continued his probation.
[2] The terms of J.S.’s probation included abstention from the use and possession
of illegal substances and alcohol and a requirement that J.S. attend school
regularly and obey school rules with no unexcused absences, tardies, or
suspensions. In August 2018, the State filed a modification report alleging that
J.S. had tested positive for THC in June and July 2018, had received two days
of in-school suspension after he left school without permission, had received
three days of out-of-school suspension for calling the in-school suspension
supervisor a “bitch,” and had accumulated seventy individual class absences.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 43. Following a modification hearing, the juvenile
court allowed J.S. to remain on probation but ordered that he serve up to ninety
days of home detention and participate in a day reporting program; the court
also imposed a stayed sentence of thirty days at the St. Joseph County Juvenile
Justice Center.
[3] In August 2019, the State filed a modification report indicating that from
December 9, 2018, to July 25, 2019, J.S.’s whereabouts were unknown. During
these months, he failed to contact his probation officer, his caseworker, or his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2147 | January 31, 2020 Page 2 of 4
tutor. Following a modification hearing, the juvenile court ordered J.S.
committed to the Department of Correction (DOC) for housing in an
appropriate juvenile facility. J.S. now appeals.
[4] Placement of a juvenile who is adjudged delinquent is within the discretion of
the juvenile court. M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 458 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
This broad discretion is “subject to the statutory considerations of the welfare of
the child, the safety of the community, and the policy of favoring the least harsh
disposition.” Id.; see also Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6 (listing statutory factors). We
will reverse only if the disposition is clearly erroneous and against the logic and
effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or the reasonable,
probable, and actual inferences that may be drawn therefrom. M.C., 134
N.E.3d at 458.
[5] J.S. argues that the juvenile court in this case erred because it failed to order the
least harsh disposition. We cannot agree. J.S. has been on juvenile probation
since early 2018, under multiple cause numbers, including two terms of home
detention. As part of probation, he has participated with services including
Gang Violence Intervention programming, group sessions with Dockside
services, home-based individual therapy, tutoring, case management services,
and Day Reporting sessions including alternative educational programming.
[6] Notwithstanding this array of services, as well as the lenient placement he
received for nearly two years, J.S. has been unable to comply with probation
requirements or the rule of law. He has committed new offenses, tested positive
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2147 | January 31, 2020 Page 3 of 4
for THC on multiple occasions, failed to attend school regularly and conform
his behavior to school requirements, and absconded altogether from the
juvenile justice system for over six months. J.S.’s probation officer explained to
the juvenile court that “we have exhausted all options with this Juvenile and
family.” Tr. Vol. II p. 5. The more lenient placement has failed to put J.S. on
the path of rehabilitation, and at this point, we find that the juvenile court did
not err by finding that it had no viable alternative other than placement in the
DOC.
[7] The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
Riley, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2147 | January 31, 2020 Page 4 of 4