Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1257 | November 26, 2019 Page 1 of 8

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

Jeffery Haupt

Law Office of Jeffery Haupt

South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General

Lauren A. Jacobsen

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

T.L.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Petitioner

November 26, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-JV-1257

Appeal from the St. Joseph Probate 

Court

The Honorable Jason A. 

Cichowicz, Judge

The Honorable Graham C. 

Polando, Magistrate

Trial Court Cause Nos.

71J01-1812-JD-426

71J01-1809-JD-325

71J01-1901-JD-24

71J01-1901-JD-25
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1257 | November 26, 2019 Page 2 of 8

Crone, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] In four separate causes, sixteen-year-old T.L. was adjudicated delinquent for 

acts amounting to level 5 felony child pornography, level 6 felony child

exploitation, level 6 felony escape, level 6 felony auto theft, and class A 

misdemeanor theft if committed by an adult. In a joint dispositional hearing on 

all four causes, the trial court ordered his placement in the Indiana Department 

of Correction (“DOC”). T.L. now appeals his placement. Finding that the trial 

court acted within its discretion in ordering T.L.’s placement in the DOC, we 

affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In the summer of 2018, fourteen-year-old H.S. was playing basketball on an 

outdoor court in South Bend. T.L. and his cousin were at the same outdoor 

recreation area, and T.L. approached H.S., with whom he was acquainted. The 

two went behind a nearby residence, and T.L. told H.S. that he would hurt her 

family if she did not perform oral sex on him. H.S. complied, but unbeknownst 

to her, either T.L. or his cousin was videotaping the sexual encounter on a cell 

phone. T.L. subsequently posted the video on a Facebook messenger group 

chat that he and his friends used to display videos depicting nudity and sexual 

situations. H.S.’s mother became aware of the video and notified police, who 

commenced an investigation. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1257 | November 26, 2019 Page 3 of 8

[3] In September 2018, police received a report of two teenage boys who stole 

merchandise worth $412 from a local retail store and sped off in a vehicle with 

two other boys. The store manager and police officers gave chase, and T.L. 

was eventually found behind a dumpster outside another retail store and 

apprehended. At the time of his apprehension, he was wearing a pair of jeans 

he had stolen. The State filed a delinquency petition alleging conduct 

amounting to class A misdemeanor theft (“Cause 325”). During the pendency 

of Cause 325, T.L. was placed on home detention with electronic monitoring. 

After a factfinding hearing, the trial court entered a true finding. The State 

requested that T.L.’s home detention be continued due to the ongoing

investigation of the videotape incident involving H.S. 

[4] Shortly thereafter, based on that incident, the State filed a juvenile delinquency 

petition alleging that T.L. committed acts amounting to level 5 felony child 

exploitation and level 6 felony child pornography if committed by an adult 

(“Cause 426”). During the pendency of Cause 426, T.L. cut off his electronic

ankle monitor and ran away from home. His whereabouts were unknown for 

approximately two weeks, until he was discovered driving a vehicle that had 

been reported as stolen from an automobile dealership. A standoff ensued 

between T.L. and South Bend Police Department Officer Alan Wiegand. 

When Officer Wiegand walked toward the front of the vehicle in an alley, T.L. 

pressed the accelerator. However, the vehicle was in neutral, and the officer 

safely reached the driver’s side. T.L. eventually was removed from the vehicle. 

Inside the vehicle, officers discovered two additional key fobs belonging to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1257 | November 26, 2019 Page 4 of 8

different vehicles. T.L. was placed in detention at the local juvenile justice 

center, where he accumulated nearly forty misconduct reports in three months’ 

time.

[5] The State filed additional delinquency petitions against T.L. for conduct 

amounting to level 6 felony escape (“Cause 24”) and level 6 felony auto theft 

(“Cause 25”). T.L. admitted to the allegations in Causes 24 and 25 but denied 

the allegations in Cause 426. After a factfinding hearing in Cause 426, the trial 

court entered true findings for level 5 felony child exploitation and level 6 

felony child pornography. The court ordered that T.L. undergo a psychosexual 

evaluation. During the evaluation, he admitted to being involved in a gang and 

reported that he had stolen more than fifty vehicles without being caught. He 

also requested a copy of his police report so that he could write a rap song about 

it. Evaluating psychologist Dr. Jeffrey Burnett found T.L. to be antisocial, 

impulsive, and self-centered, and a high risk to reoffend. 

[6] The trial court conducted a joint dispositional hearing for all four causes. Dr. 

Burnett recommended that T.L.’s placement be restrictive. The probation 

department recommended placement in the DOC based on the findings in Dr. 

Burnett’s report and T.L.’s numerous misconduct reports, which included 

incidents of gang promotion, threatening staff and peers, and battering a peer. 

The trial court committed T.L. to the DOC. T.L. now appeals his 

commitment. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1257 | November 26, 2019 Page 5 of 8

Discussion and Decision

[7] T.L. challenges his placement in the DOC. The disposition of a juvenile 

adjudicated a delinquent is a matter committed to the trial court’s discretion, 

subject to the statutory considerations of the child’s welfare, community safety, 

and the policy favoring the least harsh disposition. R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 

386, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). We review the trial court’s dispositions for an 

abuse of discretion, which occurs if its decision is clearly against the logic and 

effect of the facts and circumstances before it or the reasonable inferences that 

may be drawn therefrom. Id. 

[8] Juvenile court proceedings are civil, not criminal, in nature. J.S. v. State, 110

N.E.3d 1173, 1175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied (2019). “[T]he goal of the 

juvenile process is rehabilitation so that the youth will not become a criminal as 

an adult.” Id. at 1175-76 (quoting R.H., 937 N.E.2d at 388). Thus, juvenile 

courts have a variety of placement choices. Id. at 1176. Indiana Code Section 

31-37-18-6 reads, 

If consistent with the safety of the community and the best 

interest of the child, the juvenile court shall enter a dispositional 

decree that:

(1) is:

(A) in the least restrictive (most family like) and most appropriate 

setting available; and

(B) close to the parents’ home, consistent with the best interest 

and special needs of the child;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1257 | November 26, 2019 Page 6 of 8

(2) least interferes with family autonomy;

(3) is least disruptive of family life;

(4) imposes the least restraint on the freedom of the child and the 

child’s parent, guardian, or custodian; and

(5) provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by the 

child’s parent, guardian, or custodian.

[9] Indiana Code Section 31-37-18-9(a)(5) requires the trial court to state its reasons 

for the disposition chosen. This involves the trial court’s issuance of written 

findings and conclusions concerning the child’s care, treatment, rehabilitation, 

or placement; parental participation in the plan; efforts made to prevent the 

child’s removal from the parent; family services offered; and the court’s reasons 

for its disposition. Ind. Code § 31-37-18-9(a)(1)-(5). 

[10] Here, the trial court issued findings indicating its consideration of the statutory 

factors and its reasons for ordering placement in the DOC. These include: 

T.L.’s actions while on home placement, e.g., removing his electronic 

monitoring device and committing new delinquent acts; his repeated 

misconduct while detained in the juvenile justice center, which demonstrates 

that lesser restrictive means of controlling his behavior have failed; and the 

danger he poses to himself and others based on the serious nature of his

offenses. Appealed Order at 2-3. At the close of the dispositional hearing, the 

trial court addressed T.L.’s harm to the community, his multiple offenses in the 

four separate causes before it, his numerous incident reports during detention,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1257 | November 26, 2019 Page 7 of 8

the circumstances of the sexually graphic videotaping, in which “you, for your 

own kicks, decided to humiliate another person,” and the fact that “you lied to 

my face in the – with respect to the auto theft charge.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 90-91. The 

trial court acknowledged that commitment to the DOC is harsh and that it has 

been “extraordinarily difficult anytime” it has made that finding. Id. at 90. 

Ultimately, however, the court did make that finding, and reasoned that T.L. 

had “the fewest prospects for rehabilitation of anyone I’ve seen. And I highly 

doubt that even the DOC can do anything, but it’s all I’ve got.” Id. at 91. 

[11] To the extent that T.L. touts his absence of a prior record as militating toward a 

less restrictive placement, we are unpersuaded, given the number and nature of 

the offenses before the trial court for disposition as well as T.L.’s conduct 

during the pendency of the proceedings. Like the trial court, we find 

particularly troubling T.L.’s activity related to (secretly) videotaping people in 

compromising, pornographic positions and posting the videos on a Facebook

chat group specifically devoted to such videos. See Tr. Vol. 2 at 57 (H.S.’s 

testimony that T.L. told her he was just texting someone). T.L. was both the 

creator and the distributor of the objectionable material. Moreover, he 

demonstrated a lack of remorse for his delinquent conduct, bragging to Dr. 

Burnett about having stolen fifty vehicles without being caught and expressing 

his desire to use the details of his criminal activity as lyrics for a rap song. Lack 

of juvenile record notwithstanding, less restrictive options have been tried during 

the pendency of the proceedings and have failed spectacularly. Home detention 

with electronic monitoring did not deter T.L., as he simply cut off the device 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1257 | November 26, 2019 Page 8 of 8

and continued to commit delinquent acts. His nearly forty misconduct reports 

during his three-month tenure at the juvenile justice center, which include

physically violent conduct and gang recruitment, do not engender confidence 

for his future success if placed outside the DOC. In short, the logic and effect of 

the facts and circumstances before the trial court support its decision to place 

T.L. in the DOC, and as such, we conclude that the court acted within its

discretion. Accordingly, we affirm.

[12] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.