J.G. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                                      FILED
    regarded as precedent or cited before any                             Jul 10 2019, 10:42 am
    court except for the purpose of establishing                               CLERK
    the defense of res judicata, collateral                                Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    estoppel, or the law of the case.                                           and Tax Court
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Megan Shipley                                             Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    Marion County Public Defender Agency                      Attorney General of Indiana
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Samantha M. Sumcad
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    J.G.,                                                     July 10, 2019
    Appellant-Respondent,                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
    19A-JV-181
    v.                                                Appeal from the Marion Superior
    Court
    State of Indiana,                                         The Honorable Marilyn A.
    Appellee-Petitioner.                                      Moores, Judge
    The Honorable Gary Chavers,
    Magistrate
    Trial Court Cause No.
    49D09-1809-JD-1078
    Najam, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-181 | July 10, 2019                   Page 1 of 5
    Statement of the Case
    [1]   J.G. appeals the juvenile court’s award of guardianship over him to the
    Department of Correction after the court adjudicated J.G. a delinquent on three
    counts of armed robbery, each as a Level 3 felony when committed by an adult.
    J.G. raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the juvenile court
    abused its discretion when it awarded guardianship over him to the Department
    of Correction. We affirm.
    Facts and Procedural History
    [2]   In mid-August of 2018, when he was fifteen years old, J.G. sold marijuana to
    three other juveniles near Arsenal Tech High School. The three juveniles and
    J.G. then began to smoke the marijuana together. Shortly thereafter, several
    other juveniles joined J.G. and, with J.G.’s assistance, robbed the first three
    juveniles at gunpoint. As the perpetrators were leaving the scene, J.G. told the
    first three juveniles to not say anything to anyone “or they would be shot.”
    Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 41 (capitalization removed). Indianapolis
    Metropolitan Police Department officers arrested J.G. and his accomplices
    shortly thereafter, and at least one of the victims changed schools out of fear of
    being “kill[ed]” for having spoken “to the police.” 
    Id. at 71.
    [3]   While detained and awaiting his denial hearing before the juvenile court, J.G.
    had five reported incidents of poor behavior. One incident “was for refusal to
    follow direction of staff.” 
    Id. at 68.
    Another incident was for “an altercation
    with another resident,” which resulted in J.G. “trying to get away from the
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-181 | July 10, 2019   Page 2 of 5
    other resident who wanted to fight him.” 
    Id. Following a
    fact-finding hearing
    in November of 2018, the juvenile court entered true findings on the State’s
    allegations that J.G. had committed three acts of armed robbery, each as a
    Level 3 felony when committed by an adult.
    [4]   Prior to the dispositional hearing, J.G. underwent a psychological evaluation
    with Dr. Jim L. Dalton. Following that evaluation, Dr. Dalton stated that,
    given the “serious and dangerous” actions underlying the juvenile court’s true
    findings, “[i]t would be understandable if the Court deems it necessary to
    remove [J.G.] from the community . . . .” 
    Id. at 105.
    Further, J.G.’s
    predispositional report stated that, when he was thirteen years old, J.G. had
    been alleged to have committed battery, as a Class A misdemeanor when
    committed by an adult, which allegation was closed without a fact-finding
    hearing after J.G. failed to complete the offered services. The predispositional
    report also stated that, on a different occasion when he was thirteen, J.G. had
    been alleged to have committed battery, as a Class B misdemeanor when
    committed by an adult, which allegation was also closed without a fact-finding
    upon J.G.’s successful completion of offered services. The predispositional
    report also identified J.G. as having a “[h]igh risk to re-offend.” 
    Id. at 124.
    [5]   The State recommended that guardianship over J.G. be awarded to the
    Department of Correction so that he would have a “secure and structured
    setting” and no longer “pos[e] a threat to the community and himself.” 
    Id. at 125.
    Following the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court adopted the State’s
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-181 | July 10, 2019   Page 3 of 5
    recommendation and awarded guardianship over J.G. to the Department of
    Correction. This appeal ensued.
    Discussion and Decision
    [6]   J.G. challenges the juvenile court’s order that he be placed in the wardship of
    the Department of Correction. As the Indiana Supreme Court has explained:
    The specific disposition of a delinquent is within the juvenile
    court’s discretion, to be guided by the following considerations:
    the safety of the community, the best interests of the child, the
    least restrictive alternative, family autonomy and life, freedom of
    the child, and the freedom and participation of the parent,
    guardian, or custodian. We reverse only for an abuse of
    discretion, namely a decision that is clearly against the logic and
    effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the
    reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn
    therefrom.
    K.S. v. State, 
    849 N.E.2d 538
    , 544 (Ind. 2006) (citations and quotation marks
    omitted).
    [7]   We cannot say that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it awarded
    guardianship over J.G. to the Department of Correction. J.G. participated in
    the armed robbery of three other juveniles; he warned those juveniles not to tell
    anyone about the robbery or they would be shot; one of his victims changed
    schools out of fear of retaliation for having gone to the police; during J.G.’s
    pretrial detention, he had five reported incidents of misbehavior, including
    failing to follow directions and engaging in altercations with others; his
    psychologist supported J.G.’s removal from the community based on J.G.’s
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-181 | July 10, 2019   Page 4 of 5
    dangerous behavior; and the predispositional report assessed J.G. as having a
    high risk of reoffending. We also note that, while no fact-finding hearings were
    held on the State’s two prior battery allegations against J.G., those allegations
    were dismissed only after mixed results from J.G. in offered services, which
    suggests, in support of the juvenile court’s judgment here, that less-restrictive
    options than placement with the Department of Correction would not be
    successful.
    [8]   J.G.’s arguments on appeal are merely requests for this Court to disregard the
    evidence most favorable to the juvenile court’s judgment and, instead, consider
    only the evidence that J.G. considers favorable. But we are not at liberty to
    reverse the juvenile court’s exercise of its discretion simply because we might
    have reached a different result on the same evidence. See 
    K.S., 849 N.E.2d at 544
    . J.G.’s argument on appeal is contrary to our standard of review, and,
    under the proper standard, we cannot say that the juvenile court abused its
    discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.
    [9]   Affirmed.
    Baker, J., and Robb, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-181 | July 10, 2019   Page 5 of 5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19A-JV-181

Filed Date: 7/10/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/10/2019