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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

COREY L. SCOTT GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

ERIC P. BABBS

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

T.S., )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 49A04-1204-JV-213

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Gary K. Chavers, Judge Pro Tem

The Honorable Geoffrey A. Gaither, Magistrate

Cause No. 49D09-1202-JD-452

December 31, 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MAY, Judge
2

T.S. was alleged to be a juvenile delinquent for committing acts that, if committed by 

an adult, would be Class B felony confinement;1 Class C felony battery with a deadly 

weapon;2 Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license;3and Class A 

misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm.4 T.S. admitted committing Class C felony 

battery with a deadly weapon, and the State dismissed the other allegations. After a

dispositional hearing, the juvenile court committed T.S. to the Department of Correction

(DOC) for an indeterminate term in a juvenile correctional facility. T.S. appeals, alleging 

there were alternative less restrictive placements and treatment available. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 27, 2012, Cortland McGrown was in a fistfight with William Jackson, 

who is T.S.’s adult cousin. After that fight, Jackson told McGrown that he would kill him.

Then, on February 15, McGrown and his wife drove their three children to a school 

bus stop in Indianapolis to drop off their children. When McGrown’s van stopped at the bus 

stop, Jackson and sixteen-year-old T.S. were there waiting for him. Jackson told McGrown:

“Get out. I’m going to kill you right here.” (App. at 56.) When McGrown refused to get out 

of the van, Jackson shattered the van’s window with a gun, and T.S. helped Jackson drag 

McGrown from the van. While McGrown was on the ground, T.S. used his semi-automatic 

handgun to repeatedly strike McGrown’s back, neck, and head. Jackson fired his gun at 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3.

2

Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.

3

Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1.

4

Ind. Code § 35-47-10-5. 
3

McGrown’s head, but the bullet entered and exited only McGrown’s scalp. T.S. and Jackson 

ran away. 

Both McGrown and his wife identified T.S. and Jackson as the attackers.5 At his 

adjudication hearing, T.S. admitted he used a handgun to strike McGrown, and he also 

acknowledged McGrown continued to experience physical pain from the beating. The court 

accepted his admissions and ordered a pre-dispositional report. 

The pre-dispositional report revealed T.S. had been in contact with the juvenile justice 

system a number of times. At age thirteen, T.S. shot his sister with a BB gun and, therefore, 

was arrested for committing acts that would be criminal recklessness and battery, but the 

State did not file a delinquency petition. At age fourteen, T.S. carried a knife to school and 

was arrested for illegal possession of a knife on school property, but no delinquency petition 

was filed. Also at age fourteen, T.S. was arrested and the State filed a delinquency petition 

for acts that would be attempted burglary, attempted residential entry, criminal trespass, and 

criminal mischief, but the petition was later dismissed. At fifteen, T.S. was adjudicated a 

delinquent for possessing marijuana and ordered to serve probation, which was terminated 

unsuccessfully after T.S. and his mother failed to follow through with services. 

T.S. reported a substance abuse history that included smoking three or four marijuana 

cigars per day. T.S. completed a substance abuse assessment in March of 2011, but he was

unsuccessfully discharged from individual and group substance abuse counseling due to his 

 

5 The State charged Jackson, who was an adult, with Class A felony attempted murder and Class B felony 

criminal confinement. 
4

lack of attendance. Home-based services were ordered for T.S. as part of a child in need of 

services proceeding involving T.S.’s son, but “[a]ll services were closed out due to [T.S.’s] 

lack of participation.” (Id. at 69.) A juvenile risk assessment indicated, as of March 28, 

2012, T.S. was a “High Risk” to reoffend. (Id.)

The probation officer that prepared the pre-dispositional report recommended T.S. be 

committed to the DOC:

At this stage, Probation believes the youth needs to be acutely aware that his 

pattern of behavior will result in commitment to the department of corrections 

[sic] in order to provide protection to the community against further criminal 

offenses by the youth.

Dispositional Options Considered and Evaluation of each Option:

Community-based Services:

Youth was arrested on serious charges after receiving 

community and family-based supports, but failed to participate. 

For the safety of this community it is not recommended that he 

participate in community based services.

Out-of-home placement:

Placement is not an option due to him not currently suffering 

from a diagnosis that would require him to be placed.

Commitment to the Department of Correction:

Youth was arrested on a serious offense after receiving 

probation supervision and services. Youth have [sic] a history 

of being required to participate in community based services and 

being unsuccessfully discharged due to lack of participation. 

For the safety of this community it is recommended that he be 

committed to the Indiana Department of Corrections [sic].

(Id. at 71-72) (emphases in original). 

The juvenile court ordered a psychological evaluation, and the report therefrom stated 

that T.S.’s mother “may not fully understand his psychosocial profile and his tendency 

toward drug abuse, antisocial influence and antisocial thinking.” (Id. at 98.) The 
5

psychologist recommended: “If [T.S.] and his mother cannot be immediately 100% compliant 

with services and requirements, it is suggested that [T.S.’s] risks be managed in an out-ofhome setting.” (Id. at 99.) 

The juvenile court found and ordered: “Sending [T.S.] home . . . is not the right thing

to do. I believe that the recommendations from probation are in [T.S.’s] best interest and I 

believe that’s the right thing to do. I am going to commit [T.S.] to [the] Department of 

Correction for placement at Boy’s School.” (Tr. at 30.) 

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

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). The juvenile court’s 

discretion is subject to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the child, the safety of 

the community, and the policy favoring the least harsh disposition. Id. The least restrictive 

placement is required only “if it is consistent with the ‘safety of the community and the best 

interest of the child.’” D.C. v. State, 935 N.E.2d 290, 292 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Ind. 

Code § 31-37-18-6), summarily aff’d in relevant part 958 N.E.2d 757, 758 (Ind. 2011). 

Although rehabilitation is the goal of the juvenile justice system, we recognize that “‘in some 

instances, confinement may be one of the most effective rehabilitative techniques available.’” 

N.D.F. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 1085, 1089 (Ind. 2002) (quoting Madaras v. State, 425 N.E.2d 

670, 672 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981)).

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing T.S. to the DOC because the 

evidence supported an inference that disposition was necessary for the community’s safety. 
6

T.S. and Jackson pulled McGrown out of his van, T.S. pistol-whipped him, and Jackson shot 

McGrown in the head – all in retaliation for a prior fight between Jackson and McGrown. 

Although his prior involvement with the juvenile justice system had not proceeded to 

adjudication, those dismissed actions do demonstrate that interaction with the system did not 

deter T.S. from committing future criminal acts. In addition, T.S.’s actions appear to have 

grown more violent as he has gotten older. 

T.S. was found to be a high risk to reoffend, and he has a history of not successfully 

completing counseling and home-based services. T.S.’s arguments that he should have had a 

less restrictive placement fail because of his prior failures and his mother’s inability to urge 

him to follow through with the services previously offered. Unlike the cases T.S. cites, here 

he committed a violent offense and has a record of refusing to cooperate with service 

providers. In fact, the predisposition report indicated:

It is in the best interests of the child to be removed from the home environment 

and remaining in the home would be contrary to the health and welfare of the 

child because:

Youth has received previous services from this Court, however, he continues 

to re-offend. Youth was unsuccessfully discharged from his previous term of 

probation due to both youth and mother failing to follow through with services. 

At this point, youth is a risk to himself and to the community. 

(App. at 70.) 

As the record contains evidence demonstrating the safety of the community and T.S.’s 

best interests were served by committing him to the DOC, the juvenile court was not required
7

to choose a less restrictive placement. See J.S., 881 N.E.2d at 29. Accordingly, we affirm. 

Affirmed. 

ROBB, C.J., and PYLE, J., concur.