Court Opinion

ID: 9897354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:10:32.777021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:44.080347
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                              Jun 28 2023, 9:44 am

                                                                                    CLERK
                                                                              Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                                 Court of Appeals
                                                                                   and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                      ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Renee M. Ortega                                             Theodore E. Rokita
Lake County Juvenile Public Defender’s                      Indiana Attorney General
Office                                                      Indianapolis, Indiana
Crown Point, Indiana                                        Kyle Hunter
                                                            Deputy Attorney General
                                                            Indianapolis, Indiana

                                             IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of: R.G. (Minor                               June 28, 2023
Child),                                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellant-Defendant,                                        23A-JV-00011
                                                            Appeal from the Lake Superior
        v.                                                  Court
                                                            The Honorable Thomas P.
The State of Indiana,                                       Stefaniak, Jr., Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff                                          The Honorable Robert G. Vann,
                                                            Magistrate
                                                            Trial Court Cause No.
                                                            45D06-2207-JD-365
                                                            45D06-2207-JC-345

                                 Opinion by Judge May
                        Chief Judge Altice and Judge Foley concur.

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-00011 | June 28, 2023                            Page 1 of 9
[1]   R.G. appeals the juvenile court’s order awarding guardianship of him to the

      Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) following his violation of the

      probation he was serving after his adjudication as a delinquent for acts that, if

      committed by an adult, would constitute Level 6 felony theft of a firearm 1 and

      Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. 2 R.G. argues the trial court

      abused its discretion by sending him to DOC against the recommendations of

      the State and the Probation Department (“Probation”). We affirm.

      Facts and Procedural History
[2]   In the summer of 2022, the State had filed three separate delinquency petitions

      against R.G. under cause numbers 45D06-2207-JD-000345 (“Petition 345”),

      45D06-2207-JD-000365 (“Petition 365”), and 45D06-2207-JD-000366

      (“Petition 366”). On July 5, 2022, under Petition 345, the State alleged R.G.

      was a delinquent child for committing acts that, if committed by an adult,

      would be Level 5 felony robbery, 3 Level 6 felony theft of a firearm, and Class A

      misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. 4 On July 11, 2022, under Petition 365,

      the State alleged R.G. was a delinquent child for committing acts that, if

      committed by an adult, would be Level 6 felony battery of a public service

      1
          Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).
      2
          Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1).
      3
          Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1(a)(1).
      4
          Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3).

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-00011 | June 28, 2023         Page 2 of 9
      official, 5 Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor

      disorderly conduct, 6 and Class C misdemeanor refusal to give identifying

      information. 7 On July 11, 2022, under Petition 366, the State alleged R.G. was

      a delinquent child for committing an act that would be Class A misdemeanor

      resisting law enforcement 8 if committed by an adult.

[3]   On July 14, 2022, the parties reached an agreement whereby R.G. would admit

      he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would be Level 6 felony theft

      of a firearm as alleged in Petition 345 and Class A misdemeanor resisting law

      enforcement as alleged in Petition 365. In exchange, the State would dismiss

      all other charges from Petition 345 and Petition 365 and the entirety of Petition

      366. The court adjudicated R.G. a delinquent and placed him in Intensive

      Probation with an electronic home monitor on August 11, 2022. On August 14

      and August 22, 2022, R.G. posted pictures on Instagram of himself holding

      handguns, which was in direct violation of the terms of his probation. (Tr. Vol.

      2 at 5.) On August 23, 2022, the court issued an arrest warrant based on R.G.’s

      probation violation.

[4]   Probation began to investigate residential placements for R.G. because

      “remaining in the home would be contrary to the welfare of [R.G.]” when he

      5
          Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(c)(1).
      6
          Ind. Code § 35-45-1-3(a)(2).
      7
          Ind. Code § 36-2-13-5(b).
      8
          Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3).

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-00011 | June 28, 2023       Page 3 of 9
      continued to engage in dangerous behaviors while on probation. Rite of

      Passage – South Bend denied R.G. entry into its residential program because

      “he did not meet their criteria for admissions[.]” (Id. at 6.) “Youth Villages

      also entered a denial for [R.G.] as inappropriate for their facilities.” (Id. at 35.)

      “Lacking any other residential placement” alternatives, the placement team

      recommended DOC on September 7, 2022. (Id. at 6.)

[5]   On October 26, 2022, Probation reviewed the case with the Department of

      Child Services (“DCS”) and amended their recommendation to residential

      placement at Rite of Passage – DePaul (out-of-state). “Probation further

      recommends that the youth remain detained pending placement as he poses a

      danger to the community.” (App. Vol. 3 at 15.) Rite of Passage – DePaul

      reevaluated R.G. and “determined he would be an appropriate fit for their

      DePaul campus in state.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 35.) However, as of October 2022, Rite

      of Passage – DePaul did not have “an opening until about mid-December, and

      there [were] no other facilities in the state that did accept him.” (Id.) The State

      and Probation recommended R.G. remain detained until residential placement

      had an open spot because R.G. is “a flight risk and a danger to the

      community.” (Id. at 36.)

[6]   On November 1, 2022, in a Modified Dispositional Decree, the trial court

      found R.G. was “released from Intensive Probation (Level 2) as failed.” (App.

      Vol. 3 at 23.) The trial court rejected Probation’s recommendation of

      placement for R.G. in a residential facility because

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-00011 | June 28, 2023           Page 4 of 9
              it is unreasonable under the circumstances and not in the best
              interests of the youth. Rather the court finds that the Department
              of Corrections [sic] is the most appropriate placement based upon
              the facts and circumstances herein. The DOC can provide the
              youth with the best opportunity to avoid criminal behavior as an
              adult.

      (Id.) The trial court awarded wardship of R.G. to DOC and recommended the

      following programs: “Core Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment, Moral Recognitive

      Therapy and Why Try Learning Strategies Program.” (Id.)

      Discussion and Decision
[7]   The juvenile court system is founded on the notion of parens patriae, which

      allows the court to step into the shoes of the parents. In re K.G., 808 N.E.2d

      631, 635 (Ind. 2004). The parens patriae doctrine gives juvenile courts power to

      further the best interests of the child, “which implies a broad discretion

      unknown in the adult criminal court system.” Id. The goal of the juvenile

      process is rehabilitation so that the youth will correct his behavior and not

      become a criminal as an adult. Jordan v. State, 512 N.E.2d 407, 408 (Ind. 1987).

      “Juvenile judges have a variety of placement choices for juveniles who have

      delinquency problems,” none of which are considered sentences. Id.

[8]   R.G. argues the juvenile court abused its discretion when it awarded

      guardianship of him to the DOC. A decision is an abuse of discretion if it is

      clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the trial

      court or against “the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn”

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-00011 | June 28, 2023           Page 5 of 9
      from those facts and circumstances. K.S. v. State, 114 N.E.3d 849, 854 (Ind. Ct.

      App. 2018), trans. denied. While juvenile courts have “‘wide latitude and great

      flexibility’” in fashioning dispositions for delinquents, id. (quoting C.T.S. v.

      State, 781 N.E.2d 1193, 1203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied), our legislature

      delineated factors the trial court should consider as it makes its decision:

              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;

              (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.

      Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6.

[9]   R.G. argues the trial court abused its discretion when it did not follow the

      recommendation of Probation and the State to place R.G. in a residential

      placement that would be less restrictive than DOC. R.G. argues “residential

      placement was clearly available to the Trial Court.” (Appellant’s Br. at 11.)
      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-00011 | June 28, 2023              Page 6 of 9
       However, R.G. was denied placement in all but one residential facility and that

       placement was not going to have an opening for R.G. for at least six to eight

       weeks. Therefore, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in ordering

       R.G. to be placed in the DOC, where he could immediately begin programs

       that the trial court believed would benefit R.G. See K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d

       538, 544 (Ind. 2006) (“After repeated probation violations, the juvenile court

       reasonably concluded that commitment to the DOC, where counseling and

       educational programs were to continue, served everyone’s best interests.”).

[10]   Nevertheless, R.G. brings our attention to C.H. v. State, 201 N.E.3d 202 (Ind.

       Ct. App. 2022), and argues the same result should be reached here as well. In

       C.H., we held a juvenile’s commitment to DOC was not appropriate. C.H. was

       adjudicated a delinquent child for acts that, if committed by an adult, would

       constitute Level 6 felony theft of a firearm, Class A misdemeanor carrying a

       handgun without a license, Class C misdemeanor operating without a license,

       and Class C infraction for speeding. “[T]his was not only C.H.’s first

       delinquency adjudication but the first time a delinquency petition had been filed

       against him.” Id. at 205. C.H. was denied probation in his mother’s home

       pending disposition. In drawing the comparison with C.H., R.G. fails to

       recognize that C.H.’s behavior at the Vigo County Detention Center “was

       exemplary” while the case was pending. Id. at 202. In a letter from the director

       of C.H.’s detention center, C.H. was described as having made “‘remarkable

       progress’ and ‘amazing strides’ and that C.H. ‘is well liked by his peers and gets

       along with everyone, always avoiding confrontations when they arise.’” Id. at

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-00011 | June 28, 2023        Page 7 of 9
       204. R.G., on the other hand, violated probation by posting pictures on

       Instagram of himself with firearms and by being “in a few physical altercations

       while in detention.” (Ex. Vol. 3 at 9.) Furthermore, C.H.’s Indiana Youth

       Assessment System (“IYAS”) score showed a “low risk of reoffending.” 201

       N.E.3d at 205. In contrast, R.G.’s IYAS score revealed a high risk of

       reoffending, and Probation believed R.G. was a “danger to the community.”

       (App. Vol. 3 at 15.) The pre-dispositional report states that “[R.G.] was

       previously ordered home based services, and through his actions have [sic]

       shown that he is not amenable to service provided in a home environment and

       would benefit from the secure setting at the Department of Corrections [sic].”

       (Ex. Vol. 3 at 10.) For all these reasons, the trial court did not abuse its

       discretion when it placed R.G. in the DOC. See J.S. v. State, 110 N.E.3d 1173,

       1178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering

       juvenile’s placement to DOC following probation violations for gun-related

       offenses, even though a less-restrictive option of residential placement was

       available), trans. denied.

       Conclusion
[11]   The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it placed R.G. in DOC when

       R.G. failed to abide by probation requirements, he engaged in physical

       altercations while in detention, and the only residential placement facility that

       accepted R.G. did not have an opening for six to eight weeks. Accordingly, we

       affirm.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-00011 | June 28, 2023             Page 8 of 9
[12]   Affirmed.

       Altice, C.J., and Foley, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-00011 | June 28, 2023   Page 9 of 9