Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1510-JV-1804 | May 24, 2016 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

Kimberly A. Jackson

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller 

Attorney General of Indiana

Christina D. Pace

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

J.D.M.,

Appellant-Respondent,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Petitioner.

May 24, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

21A01-1510-JV-1804

Appeal from the Fayette Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Beth A. Butsch, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

21C01-1209-JD-257

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1510-JV-1804 | May 24, 2016 Page 2 of 7

Statement of the Case

[1] J.D.M. appeals the juvenile court’s order that he register as a sex offender. 

J.D.M. raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the juvenile court’s 

order is clearly erroneous. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 16, 2013, the juvenile court adjudicated J.D.M. a delinquent based 

on his admission that he had committed an act of child molesting that would 

have been a Class C felony if committed by an adult. As a result, the court 

ordered J.D.M. to be placed in the Wernle Youth and Family Treatment Center 

(“Wernle”). The court ordered the local probation department to be 

responsible for the care and placement of J.D.M. and to file a report every three 

months updating the court on J.D.M.’s treatment progress.

[3] Over approximately the next year and one-half, the court continued J.D.M.’s 

placement through several review hearings. Thereafter, the State filed a motion 

with the trial court to order J.D.M. to register as a sex offender. The court held 

a hearing on the State’s motion on August 11, 2015, at which the State 

presented evidence that J.D.M. was likely to reoffend.

[4] On September 8, the court ordered J.D.M. to register as a sex offender. In its 

order, the court found as follows:

6. At the hearing, Dr. [David] Soper[, Clinical Director of 

Wernle,] testified that both the ERASOR and Static-99 

psychosexual assessments were administered to [J.D.M.] He 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1510-JV-1804 | May 24, 2016 Page 3 of 7

scored at a moderate risk to reoffend on both assessments, after 

nearly 3 years in residential treatment.

7. Dr. Soper further testified that [J.D.M.] cannot function in 

a regular school setting; has been removed from school 2-3 times; 

is addicted to pornography and has accessed pornographic 

websites at school; is not able to interact or socialize with 

students his own age[;] and is not socially competent.

8. Dr. Soper and Mr. [Stanley] Thomas[, Clinical Case 

Manager for J.D.M. at Wernle,] testified that[,] on December 15, 

2014, [J.D.M.] was moved to a semi-transitional unit at Wernle 

to enable him to develop independent living skills. On April 23, 

2015, [J.D.M.] had to be moved back to a regular residential unit 

due to his failure to adjust and lack of initiation and developing 

independent living skills.

9. To date, after nearly 3 years of treatment, both Dr. Soper 

and [J.D.M.’s] case manager testified that they recommend a 

detailed safety plan, continued treatment[,] and placement in a 

supervised group home.

10. On April 15, 2015, before he was removed from school, 

[J.D.M.] wrote an inappropriate letter to an age[-]inappropriate 

middle[-]school student.

11. [J.D.M.] regularly viewed what is considered “abnormal” 

pornography, considered deviant in nature.

12. Due to the foregoing the Court finds, by clear and 

convincing evidence, that [J.D.M.] is likely to repeat an act that 

would be a sex offense if committed by an adult.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1510-JV-1804 | May 24, 2016 Page 4 of 7

Appellant’s App. at 218. Shortly thereafter, on September 30 the court held a 

“review hearing” in order to “go over the sex offender conditions of probation” 

required by the court’s September 8 order. Tr. at 151. At that hearing, the 

court, for the first time, explained to J.D.M. the conditions of J.D.M.’s 

probation, which included specific details regarding his registration with local 

law enforcement as a sex offender. See Appellant’s App. at 5. This appeal 

ensued.1

Discussion and Decision

[5] J.D.M. appeals the trial court’s order that he register as a sex offender. We 

review the trial court’s order for a juvenile to register as a sex offender for clear 

and convincing evidence. M.L.H. v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1, 3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), 

trans. denied. “The standard of review is the same standard regularly applied to 

sufficiency cases.” Id. When judging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting 

a decision to place a juvenile on a sex offender registry, we neither reweigh the 

evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. Rather, this court looks to 

the evidence and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom that 

support the juvenile court’s decision, and we will affirm a juvenile court’s 

decision to place a juvenile on a sex offender registry if evidence of probative 

 

1

 J.D.M. filed his notice of appeal on October 30, 2015. On cross-appeal, the State asserts that J.D.M. did 

not timely file his notice of appeal, and, as such, his appeal is forfeited. We reject the State’s cross-appeal and 

consider this appeal on its merits. We also reject J.D.M.’s assertion in his Reply Brief that the State has 

failed to respond to his arguments on appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1510-JV-1804 | May 24, 2016 Page 5 of 7

value exists from which the juvenile court could find by clear and convincing 

evidence that the elements of Indiana Code Section 11-8-8-5 have been met. Id.

[6] Here, J.D.M. asserts that Section 11-8-8-5, which defines a “sex or violent 

offender” for purposes of determining who may register, does not apply to him. 

Section 11-8-8-5(b)(2) provides that a sex offender includes a child who has 

committed a delinquent act and who:

(A) is at least fourteen (14) years of age;

(B) is on probation, is on parole, is discharged from a facility by 

the department of correction, is discharged from a secure private 

facility (as defined in IC 31-9-2-115), or is discharged from a 

juvenile detention facility as a result of an adjudication as a 

delinquent child for an act that would be an offense described in 

subsection (a) if committed by an adult; and

(C) is found by a court by clear and convincing evidence to be 

likely to repeat an act that would be an offense described in 

subsection (a) if committed by an adult.

Ind. Code § 11-8-8-5 (2012). According to J.D.M., Section 11-8-8-5 does not 

apply to him for two reasons. First, J.D.M. asserts that he has not been placed 

on probation or parole, and he has not been discharged from one of the facilities 

listed under subsection (b)(2)(B). Second, J.D.M. asserts that the State failed to 

present clear and convincing evidence that he is likely to reoffend, as required 

under subsection (b)(2)(C). We address each argument in turn.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1510-JV-1804 | May 24, 2016 Page 6 of 7

[7] We first address J.D.M.’s argument that he has not been placed on probation. 

This is incorrect. Upon his adjudication as a delinquent, the juvenile court 

ordered “the probation department of Fayette County” to be “responsib[le] for 

the placement and care” of J.D.M., although the court ordered J.D.M. to be 

placed at Wernle. Appellant’s App. at 110. And throughout J.D.M.’s time at 

Wernle, the local probation department was required to provide the juvenile 

court with regular updates for the court’s review. Thus, we cannot say that the 

juvenile court erred when it concluded that J.D.M. was on probation when it 

ordered him to register as a sex offender. J.D.M.’s arguments to the contrary 

are a request for this court to disregard the court’s statements and reweigh the 

evidence on appeal, which we will not do.

[8] We next address J.D.M.’s assertion that the State did not present sufficient 

evidence to show that he is likely to reoffend. Again, we cannot agree. The 

juvenile court made numerous findings, supported by the evidence, that support 

its conclusion that J.D.M. is likely to repeat an act that would be a sex offense if 

committed by an adult. Most notably, Dr. Soper testified that J.D.M.’s test 

scores placed him in a “moderate to low risk” to reoffend. Tr. at 108. Dr. 

Soper then clarified that J.D.M.’s likelihood to reoffend would increase as 

supervision over J.D.M. decreased. And Dr. Soper testified that, given 

J.D.M.’s age, supervision over him was about to decrease. Thus, juvenile 

court’s conclusion that J.D.M. was likely to reoffend is supported by the record, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A01-1510-JV-1804 | May 24, 2016 Page 7 of 7

and J.D.M.’s arguments otherwise are merely requests for this court to reweigh 

the evidence on appeal, which we will not do.2

[9] The juvenile court’s judgment is affirmed.

[10] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.

 

2

 J.D.M. specifically challenges several of the juvenile court’s findings, but those challenges are merely 

requests for this court to reweigh the evidence. And, in any event, we conclude that any error in those 

findings is harmless in light of the court’s conclusion that J.D.M. is likely to reoffend and the evidence 

supporting that conclusion.