Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1680 | December 11, 2019 Page 1 of 7

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Katherine N. Worman

Worman Legal

Evansville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Sierra A. Murray

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

L.E.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

December 11, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-JV-1680

Appeal from the 

Vanderburgh Superior Court

The Honorable 

Brett J. Niemeier, Judge

The Honorable

Renee A. Ferguson, Magistrate

Trial Court Cause Nos.

82D04-1812-JD-2339

82D04-1902-JD-233

Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1680 | December 11, 2019 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] L.E. appeals the juvenile court’s order committing him to the custody of the 

Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In January 2019, sixteen-year-old L.E. was adjudicated a delinquent for theft, a 

Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult; possession of a controlled 

substance, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult; possession of 

marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult; public 

intoxication, a Class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult; and criminal 

mischief, a Class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult. L.E. was placed on 

probation and ordered to be on home detention with electronic monitoring. 

[3] Less than three weeks later, while on home detention, L.E. removed his 

electronic-monitoring bracelet. Thereafter, the State filed a delinquency 

petition alleging that L.E. committed escape, a Level 6 felony if committed by 

an adult. On February 8, L.E. admitted that his conduct constituted escape. 

L.E.’s attorney argued that he should stay on home detention so that he can

“assist with his Grandmother” and be there for the birth of his child (due in 

June). The probation department recommended that L.E. be placed on the 

Community Service Platoon (CPS) at the Southwest Indiana Regional Youth 

Village. The juvenile court so ordered.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1680 | December 11, 2019 Page 3 of 7

[4] In March, the juvenile court held a review hearing. L.E.’s probation officer 

reported that L.E. had “completely struggled with the CPS program,” 

“destroyed property within the CPS program,” and “made very little progress.” 

Tr. p. 21. When asked by the court which property L.E. destroyed, his 

probation officer explained, “He flipped tables and some chairs and basically 

destroyed the book shelves.” Id. at 22. The juvenile court warned L.E. that if 

this type of behavior continued, “I’m sending you to the Department of 

Correction—prison.” Id. At that time, however, the juvenile court ordered that 

L.E. remain at the Youth Village to see if the court’s warning would lead L.E. 

“to realize the importance of controlling himself.” Id. at 25.

[5] In May, the juvenile court held another review hearing. L.E.’s probation officer 

reported that “[t]hings just generally haven’t been going well.” Id. at 28. She 

explained that there was recently an incident where L.E. “went off campus and 

was attempting to get cigarettes and a lighter from . . . workers at Wabash 

foods.” Id. L.E.’s probation officer recommended that he remain at the Youth 

Village, and the juvenile court agreed.

[6] In June, the State filed a motion alleging that L.E.’s “placement is no longer 

suitable due to his continued behavioral issues and defiance.” Appellant’s App. 

Vol. II p. 132. The State also noted that L.E. had not made any progress since 

he was admitted to the Youth Village in February. At the hearing on the State’s 

motion to modify, L.E. admitted that his placement at the Youth Village was 

no longer available and that he did not make progress in that program. L.E.’s 

probation officer recommended that L.E. be placed at the Youth Care Center 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1680 | December 11, 2019 Page 4 of 7

for a ninety-day secure detention. L.E.’s attorney emphasized that L.E. is 

expecting a child and argued that he should be allowed “to serve his time on 

home detention,” or in the alternative, “some sort of split between the two. 

The first portion at [the Youth Care Center]. If his behavior is appropriate at 

[the Youth Care Center] and he earns the privilege, then allow him to step 

down to home detention.” Tr. pp. 33-34. The juvenile court ordered that L.E. 

be placed at the Youth Care Center for ninety days, but said that after forty-five 

days, if L.E. followed all the rules, the court would consider putting L.E. on 

home detention for his final thirty days. See id. at 35. The court acknowledged 

that this meant that L.E. would not be able to see the birth of his baby.

[7] In July, the State filed another motion alleging that L.E.’s “placement is no 

longer suitable due to his continued behavior issues and defiance. [L.E.] is 

regressing since his placement at the Youth Care Center by receiving a 

considerable amount of incident reports and lock downs since his placement [in 

June].” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 136. The State also noted, “The Youth 

Care Center is requesting [L.E.’s] removal at this time.” Id. At the hearing on 

the State’s motion, L.E.’s probation officer recommended that he be placed at 

the DOC because L.E. has been given “several opportunities throughout 

probation and he has been unsuccessful.” Tr. p. 44. The State agreed with the 

probation department’s recommendation and reiterated “the number of 

opportunities that [L.E.] has been given in alternative placements and he 

continues to escalate, and . . . he has continued to escalate to the point where it 

is a grave concern that he is taunting staff at the [Youth Care Center].” Id. at 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1680 | December 11, 2019 Page 5 of 7

45. L.E.’s attorney argued that the juvenile court “keep the Department of 

Correction[] under advisement . . . [and] order [L.E.] back in another two 

weeks and see if he’s maintained” good behavior. Id. at 55. L.E.’s attorney 

emphasized L.E.’s desire “to be here for his Grandma” and “his son.” Id. At 

the end of the hearing, the juvenile court said that it “examined [L.E.’s] 

delinquency history [and] looked at the rehabilitative measures that have been 

tried with [L.E],” and in the court’s mind, “[L.E.’s] been given ample 

opportunity to show that he’s capable of rehabilitation and thereby being an 

appropriate member to keep in our community. But he has failed to do that.” 

Id. The juvenile court ordered L.E. committed to the DOC.

[8] L.E. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[9] L.E. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it concluded 

that he should be committed to the DOC. The disposition of a juvenile is 

within the juvenile court’s discretion. K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind. 

2006). We will reverse a juvenile disposition only upon a showing that the 

juvenile court abused its discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the 

disposition 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.” Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1680 | December 11, 2019 Page 6 of 7

[10] Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 guides the court’s disposition of a juvenile. In 

part, the statute states, “If 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.” Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. L.E. claims that the juvenile court’s 

disposition violates Section 31-37-18-6 because his commitment to the DOC is 

not the least restrictive option available. L.E. contends that the juvenile court

“failed to consider the special circumstances surrounding [his] life” before 

ordering him into the custody of the DOC. Appellant’s Br. p. 10.

[11] The record shows that L.E. was given numerous opportunities to rehabilitate 

himself. Specifically, L.E. was offered and failed in three different placements, 

including: home detention with electronic monitoring, the Youth Village, and 

the Youth Care Center. First, while on home detention, L.E. committed a new 

criminal offense—escape—by removing his electronic-monitoring bracelet. 

Then, while placed at the Youth Village, L.E. routinely failed to comply with 

the conditions of his placement. Finally, while placed at the Youth Care 

Center, L.E.’s behaviors escalated, and he began taunting staff. L.E. has

demonstrated that he is unable to do what is required of him without being in a 

heavily structured and supervised environment. To the extent that L.E. argues 

that the juvenile court did not consider the “special circumstances” surrounding 

his life, we disagree. L.E.’s attorney repeatedly argued that L.E.’s grandmother 

and child should be considered when determining his placement. Because the 

record shows that the “special circumstances” surrounding L.E.’s life were 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1680 | December 11, 2019 Page 7 of 7

before the juvenile court, we will not second guess its reasons for committing

L.E. to the DOC. Accordingly, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion 

when it committed L.E. to the custody of the DOC.

[12] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.