K.C. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any
Dec 26 2019, 7:07 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Suzy St. John Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
K.C., December 26, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-JV-1410
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Marilyn A.
Appellee-Plaintiff Moores, Judge
The Honorable Geoffrey A.
Gaither, Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49D09-1904-JD-387
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1410 | December 26, 2019 Page 1 of 5
[1] K.C. appeals the juvenile court’s decision to place him in the Department of
Correction (“DOC”). K.C. claims the court abused its discretion by placing
him in a more restrictive environment when K.C. has a low intellect and less-
restrictive alternative placements were available. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On April 8, 2019, in Indianapolis, K.C. was riding in a car that was pulled
over for a traffic violation. When the car stopped, K.C. and another juvenile
passenger exited the car and ran from the police. K.C. was temporarily able to
evade the police but a canine unit found him hiding between two of a semi-
truck’s tires. While searching K.C., police found a .380 caliber bullet. Police
later recovered a handgun capable of firing .380 caliber bullets in the area of
the traffic stop from which K.C. had fled.
[3] The State alleged K.C. was a delinquent for committing dangerous possession
of a firearm. K.C. admitted possessing the firearm and left the disposition up
to the juvenile court. The juvenile court found K.C. to be a delinquent child
and committed him to the DOC for six months.
Discussion and Decision
[4] We initially note that “the purpose of the juvenile process is vastly different
from the criminal justice system.” R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2010). The goal of juvenile proceedings is “rehabilitation so that the youth
will not become a criminal as an adult.” Id. (emphasis in original). To
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1410 | December 26, 2019 Page 2 of 5
facilitate this goal, juvenile courts have a number of options available for
juvenile placement: “from a private home in the community, a licensed foster
home, a local juvenile detention center, to State institutions[.]” Jordan v. State,
512 N.E.2d 407, 408 (Ind. 1987).
[5] To assist juvenile courts in selecting amongst available placement alternatives,
the Indiana Legislature has provided guidance regarding the option to be
selected for any particular child:
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.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1410 | December 26, 2019 Page 3 of 5
Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. Within those parameters, a juvenile court has
discretion in choosing the disposition appropriate for each juvenile delinquent,
D.E. v. State, 962 N.E.2d 94, 96 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), and we review its
disposition for an abuse of that discretion. Id. at 97. An abuse of discretion
occurs if the court’s decision is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts
and circumstances before it, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions
to be drawn therefrom.” Id.[6] K.C. argues the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve
time in the DOC rather than in a less-restrictive placement. However, K.C., at
only fifteen years old, has an extensive juvenile record, including true findings
for acts that would be Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class A
misdemeanor theft, Level 6 felony escape, and Level 5 felony burglary. The
court has placed K.C. in numerous alternative services and less restrictive
placements that were intended to help him, including “family-centered
treatment, home based therapy, supervised release, electronic monitoring, a
mentoring program, emergency shelter care, psychological evaluations,
residential placement at Wernle Youth and Family Treatment Center, intercept,
evening reporting, day reporting, Project Life, home confinement, and
substance abuse evaluation and treatment.” (App. Vol. II at 84) (formatting
altered). Despite receiving all these services, K.C. continues to commit
delinquent acts.
[7] While the goal of the juvenile system is to rehabilitate youth, K.C. has
continued to commit delinquent acts despite receiving numerous services and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1410 | December 26, 2019 Page 4 of 5
being placed in less-restrictive programs. Therefore, we cannot say the juvenile
court abused its discretion by placing K.C. in the DOC. See, e.g., D.E., 962
N.E.2d at 97 (no abuse of discretion in placement of juvenile at DOC after less-
restrictive dispositions had been unsuccessful).
Conclusion
[8] Because K.C. has had multiple opportunities to take advantage of less
restrictive placements, but he has continued to display delinquent behavior, the
juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by placing him in the DOC following
his most recent adjudication. Accordingly, we affirm.
[9] Affirmed.
Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1410 | December 26, 2019 Page 5 of 5