Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before FILED
any court except for the purpose of Mar 30 2012, 9:56 am
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the CLERK
of the supreme court,
case. court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
NANCY A. MCCASLIN GREGORY F. ZOELLER
McCaslin & McCaslin Attorney General of Indiana
Elkhart, Indiana
ANN L. GOODWIN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
J.R.T., )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 20A03-1110-JV-477
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE ELKHART CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Terry C. Shewmaker, Judge
The Honorable Deborah A. Domine, Magistrate
Cause No. 20C01-1106-JD-248
March 30, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DARDEN, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
J.R.T. appeals the juvenile court’s order that he be committed to the Indiana
Department of Correction (the “DOC”).
We affirm.
ISSUE
Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by committing J.R.T. to the DOC.
FACTS
On April 6, 2011, J.R.T. and two other juveniles burglarized a residence from
which they took several items. On June 17, 2011, the State filed a petition, alleging
J.R.T. to be a delinquent child for committing an act that would constitute class B felony
burglary, if committed by an adult. The juvenile court approved the filing of the petition.
The juvenile court held an admission and disposition hearing on August 2, 2011.
J.R.T. admitted the allegation in the petition, and the juvenile court adjudicated J.R.T. a
delinquent child on that basis. The juvenile court ordered a sixty-day suspended
commitment to the Elkhart County Juvenile Detention Center (the “JDC”) and placed
J.R.T. on supervised probation. The juvenile court also ordered J.R.T. to participate in
the Victim Offender Reconciliation Program; perform one hundred hours of community
service; submit to random drug tests; and participate in a program called Thinking for
Change.
2
The juvenile court held a review hearing on August 30, 2011. The trial court
heard testimony that J.R.T. had tested positive for marijuana the day of the dispositional
hearing; had not performed any community service; and had failed to attend two
Thinking for Change classes. The juvenile court therefore ordered detention in the JDC.
The juvenile court held another review hearing on September 13, 2011, during
which it heard testimony that J.R.T. had failed to follow the rules regarding telephone
use; had “exhibited poor behavior,” (tr. 34), including banging on his door in a disruptive
manner and bragging about beating up someone; had failed to follow the rules during his
group sessions; had used “racial slurs and profanity,” (tr. 34); and had written about
“bitch slapping the judge.” (Tr. 35). The juvenile court ordered further detention and set
the matter for an additional review hearing.
During the review hearing on September 27, 2011, the juvenile court heard
testimony that J.R.T. continued to behave badly and violate the rules while at the JDC.
J.R.T., however, testified that he believed he had “show[n] a lot of improvement” and
requested another chance at JDC. (Tr. 51). The juvenile court awarded wardship of
J.R.T. to the DOC.
DECISION
J.R.T. asserts that the juvenile court abused its discretion in committing him to the
DOC as a less-restrictive placement was available.
[T]he choice of the specific disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a
delinquent child is a matter within the sound discretion of the juvenile court
and will only be reversed if there has been an abuse of that discretion. The
3
juvenile court’s 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. 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 inferences that can be drawn therefrom. Hence, the juvenile court is
accorded wide latitude and great flexibility in its dealings with juveniles.
J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (internal citations omitted).
Although the juvenile court is given wide latitude and great flexibility in
determining the disposition of a delinquent child, its discretion is circumscribed by
statute. Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 provides, inter alia, that “[i]f consistent with the
safety of the community and the best interest of the child, the juvenile court shall enter a
dispositional decree that . . . is . . . in the least restrictive (most family like) and most
appropriate setting available” and “provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by
the child’s parent . . . .” Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6(1)(A), (5).
The record reveals that the juvenile court gave J.R.T. several opportunities to
reform his behavior. J.R.T., however, demonstrated a number of behavioral problems
and failed to follow the rules during his periods of detention. We therefore find no abuse
of discretion in placing J.R.T. in the DOC.
Affirmed.
BAKER, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.
4