D.E.F. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Apr 19 2016, 8:06 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michael B. Troemel Gregory F. Zoeller
Lafayette, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Brian Reitz
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
D.E.F., April 19, 2016
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
79A02-1509-JV-1575
v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Faith A. Graham,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
79D03-1508-JD-133
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1509-JV-1575 | April 19, 2016 Page 1 of 6
[1] D.E.F. appeals his adjudication for one count of Battery as a Level 6 Felony
when committed by an adult,1 and two counts of Battery as class A
misdemeanors when committed by an adult.2 D.E.F. argues that there is
insufficient evidence supporting the adjudication. He also argues that the trial
court’s disposition of wardship to the Department of Correction (DOC) was an
abuse of discretion. Finding that the evidence is sufficient and that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in its dispositional order, we affirm.
Facts
[2] On July 26, 2015, a group of boys including fifteen-year-old D.E.F. attacked
three people at Bauer Park in Lafayette. They first attacked sixteen-year-old
L.C., hitting him in the head with brass knuckles, kicking him, and stomping on
him. Vonda Dickens identified D.E.F. as one of the boys who hit L.C. Tr. p.
41-42. When Dickens attempted to intervene, the boys began to hit and push
her, injuring her ankle to the point that she required hospitalization. The boys
then attacked Donnie Derrick, a deacon at a nearby church. The attack left
Derrick with a broken wrist, and he later required five stitches above his eye,
five stitches below his eye, braces for his teeth, and surgery on his thumb, as a
result of the other injuries he sustained. At trial, Derrick identified D.E.F. as
one of the boys who hit him. Tr. p. 11-12.
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(d)(1).
2
I.C. § 35-42-2-1(c).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1509-JV-1575 | April 19, 2016 Page 2 of 6
[3] On September 8, 2015, the trial court adjudicated D.E.F. delinquent for what
would have been one count of Battery as a Level 6 Felony and two counts of
Battery as class A misdemeanors, had they been committed by an adult. At the
dispositional hearing on September 15, 2015, a Tippecanoe County juvenile
probation officer recommended that the trial court transfer custody of D.E.F. to
the DOC. The probation officer detailed D.E.F.’s lengthy juvenile history,
which included a number of probation violations, an arrest at age ten for
battery, an adjudication for theft and conspiracy to commit auto theft in 2012,
and an arrest for battery as a class A misdemeanor in 2013. Tr. p. 106-09. The
probation officer also testified that wardship to the DOC was the least
restrictive option available because the Cary Home, a local residential youth
treatment center, would not accept D.E.F. The trial court agreed, ordering
wardship to the DOC at the conclusion of the dispositional hearing. D.E.F.
now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[4] First, D.E.F. argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his
adjudication. To prove D.E.F. committed Battery, the State was required to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally touched
another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner, resulting in bodily injury
to the other person. I.C. § 35-42-2-1(c) (battery resulting in bodily injury); I.C. §
35-42-2-1(d)(1) (battery resulting in moderate bodily injury). Our standard of
review for sufficiency of the evidence is well settled:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1509-JV-1575 | April 19, 2016 Page 3 of 6
When we review sufficiency of the evidence claims with respect
to juvenile adjudications, we neither reweigh the evidence nor
judge the credibility of the witnesses. Rather, we consider only
the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom and will affirm if the evidence and
those inferences constitute substantial evidence of probative value
to support the judgment.
G.N. v. State, 833 N.E.2d 1071, 1075 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (internal citations
omitted).
[5] In support of his argument, D.E.F. points to a number of alleged issues with
witness testimony at trial. He first claims that the evidence of his battery
against Derrick is insufficient because the State did not introduce evidence
relating to a photo array police showed to Derrick on July 28, 2015. Tr. p. 17-
21. D.E.F. alleges that Derrick was uncertain about his identification of D.E.F.
in the photo array. However, both Derrick and another witness testified that
D.E.F. was one of the boys who attacked Derrick, seriously injuring him.
[6] D.E.F. also argues that the evidence is insufficient as to his adjudication for
battery of L.C. because L.C. testified that D.E.F. did not hit him. Tr. p. 56-57.
However, Dickens identified D.E.F. at trial as one of the boys attacking L.C.
Tr. p. 76-77. And while D.E.F. claims that the evidence of his adjudication for
battery of Dickens is insufficient because she did not know specifically which
one of the boys hit and pushed her, Dickens stated at trial that D.E.F. was in
the group of boys that attacked her. Tr. p. 44. Considering the evidence in the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1509-JV-1575 | April 19, 2016 Page 4 of 6
light most favorable to the judgment of the trial court, we find the evidence
sufficient to sustain the adjudication.
II. Commitment to DOC
[7] Next, D.E.F. argues that the trial court’s disposition of wardship to the DOC
did not comply with Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6. A court’s disposition of
a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent child will only be reversed if the trial court
abused its discretion. J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). An
abuse of discretion occurs when the juvenile court’s action is clearly erroneous
and against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court
or the reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom. Id. Indiana Code
section 31-37-18-6 provides that a juvenile court must 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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1509-JV-1575 | April 19, 2016 Page 5 of 6
(5) provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by the
child’s parent, guardian, or custodian.
The statute also provides that the disposition must be “consistent with the safety
of the community and the best interest of the child.” Id.[8] D.E.F. argues that his placement in the DOC was the most restrictive possible
option and that it would be in his best interest to be in the custody of his mother
rather than the DOC. He also contends that incarceration in the DOC is not
required to ensure the safety of the community because his offenses are not “of
the most serious nature.” Appellant’s Br. p. 11.
[9] However, evidence was presented at the disposition hearing that D.E.F. has a
long list of past adjudications for violent offenses and has violated probation
numerous times. A youth treatment center in Tippecanoe County will no
longer accept him as a resident, and his most recent offenses resulted in injury
to three different members of the community. Accordingly, we do not find that
the trial court erred when it transferred custody of the appellant to the DOC.
[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1509-JV-1575 | April 19, 2016 Page 6 of 6