P.M. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Feb 18 2020, 9:00 am
precedent or cited before any court except for the CLERK
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Leanna Weissmann Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Evan Matthew Comer
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
P.M., February 18, 2020
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-JV-2365
v. Appeal from the Decatur Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Hon. Timothy B. Day, Judge
Appellee-Petitioner. Trial Court Cause Nos.
16C01-1907-JD-244
16C01-1907-JD-243
16C01-1902-JD-53
Bradford, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2365 | February 18, 2020 Page 1 of 16
Case Summary
[1] For actions taken in January, May, and July of 2019, the State alleged in three
separate cause numbers that P.M. committed what would be Level 6 felony
theft of a firearm, Level 6 felony obstruction of justice, Level 6 felony
residential entry, Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license,
Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, two counts of Class A
misdemeanor theft, Class B misdemeanor unauthorized entry of a motor
vehicle, and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia if committed by
an adult. P.M. eventually admitted to committing theft in cause number
16C01-1907-JD-244 (“Cause No. 244”), theft in cause number 16C01-1907-JD-
244 (“Cause No. 243”), and, in cause number 16C01-1902-JD-53 (“Cause No.
53”), theft of a firearm, carrying a handgun without a license, resisting law
enforcement, and unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle. Noting the many
failures of less-restrictive placements to cause P.M. to reform himself, the
juvenile court ordered P.M. committed to the Indiana Department of
Correction (“the DOC”) for an indeterminate term. P.M. contends that the
juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering him committed to the DOC.
Because we disagree, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] P.M. was born on April 10, 2002, and began having problems at an early age.
Beginning in 2008, P.M. has received counseling from Centerstone after he was
diagnosed with ADHD, anxiety disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and
parent–child relational problem. In 2009, P.M. started a fire in his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2365 | February 18, 2020 Page 2 of 16
grandmother’s house, nearly destroying it. In September of 2009, P.M. was
expelled from a summer youth program and a vacation Bible school due to
verbal and physical aggression and admitted for inpatient treatment for
behavioral difficulties. In November of 2011, P.M. took a mobile telephone to
school that contained pornographic images, which he showed to other students.
Between November 2 and 7, 2011, P.M. was placed at Whitewater Valley Care
Pavilion after expressing suicidal and homicidal ideation.
[3] More recently, and prior to the events at issue in this appeal, P.M. was found
delinquent for committing battery resulting in bodily injury, criminal trespass,
escape, and conversion and for leaving home without permission. P.M. has
been placed on probation several times and has violated the terms of probation
by committing such acts as unauthorized entry to a motor vehicle, leaving
home without permission, illegal consumption of an alcoholic beverage,
multiple drug screens that were positive for marijuana, and truancy. At least
once previously, P.M. was placed on home detention but was terminated from
the program after he cut a monitoring device from his ankle. The resulting
escape charge, as well as other probation violations, led to P.M.’s commitment
to the DOC in April 2017. After his release, P.M. was returned to the DOC for
violating parole in March of 2018. P.M. was released again from the DOC in
May of 2018 and remained on parole until November of that year.
I. Cause No. 53
[4] On January 16, 2019, Decatur Sheriff’s Deputy Eric Blodgett was dispatched to
investigate a call regarding a suspicious juvenile male who was reported to be
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2365 | February 18, 2020 Page 3 of 16
breaking into vehicles in the Hillcrest neighborhood of Greensburg. At 2:21
a.m., Deputy Blodgett saw a male subject matching the description he was
provided, pulled his vehicle over, and turned off his headlights. Shortly
thereafter, Deputy Blodgett observed the juvenile, who turned out to be P.M.,
walking in-between houses and near several vehicles. Deputy Blodgett
approached P.M. with his emergency lights activated. After seeing Deputy
Blodgett approaching, P.M. turned and started to walk away. The uniformed
Deputy Blodgett pulled up alongside P.M. and ordered him to stop, but P.M.
refused, asked “what the f[***] for?”, and ran behind a nearby house. Ex. Vol.
p. 9. After a brief pursuit, Deputy Blodgett tackled P.M. to the ground and
restrained his hands. P.M. was taken into custody and a handgun was
recovered from his person.
[5] During an interview with authorities, P.M. admitted that he had been in
possession of the handgun, which he knew to be loaded, and also admitted that
he had stolen the handgun from a vehicle parked near a school building several
days earlier and his intent was to sell the weapon. On February 14, 2019, the
State filed a delinquency petition in which it alleged that P.M. had committed
what would be Level 6 felony theft of a firearm, Level 6 felony obstruction of
justice, Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license, Class A
misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor
unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle if committed by an adult.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2365 | February 18, 2020 Page 4 of 16
II. Cause No. 243
[6] On May 17, 2019, P.M. and another juvenile were in the Greensburg Walmart
store when asset protection personnel observed them put bottles of liquor into
their backpacks. After P.M. and his companion walked past the last point of
purchase, asset-protection personnel approached them, and police were
dispatched to the scene. On July 16, 2019, the State filed a delinquency petition
in which it alleged that P.M. had committed what would be Class A
misdemeanor theft if committed by an adult.
III. Cause No. 244
[7] Early in the morning on July 7, 2019, P.M. was a passenger in a vehicle that
was stopped by Greensburg Police Officer Derek Fasnacht. When Officer
Fasnacht approached the car, he detected the odor of marijuana emanating
from inside the vehicle, and he subsequently ordered the occupants, including
P.M., to exit the car. A search of the interior of the Buick revealed the presence
of a marijuana grinder with plant residue on it. Also in the backseat, near
where P.M. had been sitting, Officer Fasnacht found a pair of Air Jordan
basketball shoes, a PlayStation 4 video gaming console, a purple and teal
PlayStation 4 controller, and a gray plastic garbage bag that contained another
PlayStation 4 console, multiple PlayStation 4 video games, and virtual-reality
equipment.
[8] Later that morning, Officer Fasnacht received a report from Jesse McClinic,
who claimed that several items had been stolen from his home overnight.
Officer Fasnacht was dispatched to McClinic’s residence, where McClinic
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2365 | February 18, 2020 Page 5 of 16
informed him that he was missing two PlayStation 4 consoles, multiple video
games, movies, and pieces of virtual-reality equipment. McClinic informed
Officer Fasnacht that there were no signs of forced entry at the residence, and
he indicated that the only other individuals who had a key to the home were his
mother and his former roommate, Trent Ruble.
[9] The next day, after learning that a person matching P.M.’s description had
attempted to sell a PlayStation 4 with no serial number, police travelled to
P.M.’s home and spoke to him. During the interview, P.M. produced a
PlayStation 4 console, several games, and a controller from his backpack,
claiming that he had received them from a friend. Later that same day, P.M.
and his mother (“Mother”) were called to the Greensburg Police Department
where, after being advised of their Miranda rights, they consented to an
interview. P.M. eventually acknowledged that Trent Ruble had let him into
McClinic’s residence. On July 17, 2019, the State filed a delinquency petition
in which it alleged that P.M. had committed what would be Level 6 felony
residential entry, Class A misdemeanor theft, and Class C misdemeanor
possession of paraphernalia if committed by an adult.
IV. Common Procedural History
[10] The juvenile court held an initial hearing in Cause Nos. 53, 243, and 244 on
July 23, 2019, and P.M. admitted to committing theft in Cause No. 244, theft in
Cause No. 243, and, in Cause No. 53, theft of a firearm, carrying a handgun
without a license, resisting law enforcement, and unauthorized entry of a motor
vehicle. The juvenile court ordered P.M. to undergo a pre-dispositional
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2365 | February 18, 2020 Page 6 of 16
diagnostic evaluation with the DOC and further ordered P.M. detained until his
dispositional hearing. From August 7 to August 27, 2019, P.M.’s diagnostic
evaluation was conducted at the Logansport Juvenile Detention Facility.
[11] During P.M.’s evaluation with psychiatric social service specialist Mary
Ingram, P.M. disclosed the use of multiple illegal substances, including daily
use of marijuana since the age of eight or nine, weekly use of prescription pills
since the age of thirteen, and ecstasy use every other day. Ingram noted that
P.M. expressed frustration with his lengthy history of residential placements
and admitted that his relationship with Mother was poor. P.M. informed
Ingram that his father (“Father”) was willing to allow P.M. to reside with him,
and Ingram recommended that the juvenile court attempt a placement with
Father if he is willing, as well as strict court supervision to ensure that P.M.
would be successful with community-based services. Ingram also stated,
however, that if P.M. “fail[ed] to cooperate with the stipulations of his
probation, placement in a structured residential treatment setting is
recommended.” Ex. 1 p. 26.
[12] Dr. Ellen Keris, Ph.D., performed a psychological examination, which included
a battery of assessments, the results of which led Dr. Keris to diagnose P.M.
with childhood-onset conduct disorder and polysubstance abuse. Through her
observations, Dr. Keris also disputed several previous diagnoses that P.M. had
received from other service providers over the years, including diagnoses of
autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, and certain thought disorders. Dr. Keris
concluded that P.M.’s conduct-disorder diagnosis is “[h]ighly [l]ikely to develop
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2365 | February 18, 2020 Page 7 of 16
into Antisocial Personality Disorder once he turns 18.” Ex. Vol. p. 33. Dr.
Keris determined that treatment of P.M. would likely be “difficult” based on
her observations due to P.M.’s desire to manipulate treatment providers, and
she found that P.M. appears to have “functioned the best while in the DOC[.]”
Ex. Vol. p. 34.
[13] The final of P.M.’s three evaluators was Dr. Shivani Sharma, M.D., who
performed a substance-abuse and mental-status examination on P.M. Dr.
Sharma concluded that P.M. appeared to be “at risk for violent behavior,
oppositional behavior, and aggression.” Ex. Vol. p. 64. Dr. Sharma also
expressed concern that if P.M. could remain with family members, he “may
continue to run away in times of conflict.” Ex. Vol. p. 64. These findings led
Dr. Sharma to recommend that P.M. be placed in a “temporary group
home/residential” until his relationship with family could be stabilized. Ex.
Vol. p. 64.
[14] From July 23 to August 6, 2019 (prior to P.M.’s diagnostic evaluation), and
from August 23 to September 11, 2019 (immediately following his diagnostic
evaluation), P.M. was housed in the Johnson County Juvenile Detention
Center (“the JCJDC”). In the approximately one month that P.M. was in the
JCJDC, thirteen incident reports were filed against him for behavioral
problems, including spitting on staff members and student detainees, punching
the wall, kicking his room door and windows, cursing at staff members and
other student detainees, disrupting the educational environment, threatening
female student detainees, willfully obscuring the monitoring camera in his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2365 | February 18, 2020 Page 8 of 16
room, and shattering a plastic cup and retaining shards of the cup hidden in his
room. P.M.’s behavior was so erratic that he was removed from the facility’s
general population. Facility staff attempted multiple interventions to improve
P.M.’s behavior, but these were largely unsuccessful. For example, P.M. would
cover the camera in his room to prevent facility staff from monitoring him.
Additionally, P.M.’s behavior prevented him from being offered school time at
the facility, and he also frequently refused personal-hygiene time.
[15] The juvenile court held a dispositional hearing in P.M.’s cases on September
11, 2019. At the hearing, P.M. testified and requested that the juvenile court
place him on home detention with Father. Father also testified, and he too
requested that P.M. be placed on home detention under his supervision. Father
explained that he had developed a safety plan for P.M. Under his proposal,
Father planned for P.M. to work with him in Cincinnati, Ohio, for a maximum
of nine hours per day, at least five days a week. During the remaining time,
P.M. would be alone and unsupervised inside a room at Father’s workplace
while Father finished out the workday. According to Father, P.M. would also
be expected to complete educational tasks once he and Father arrived home at
night, usually between the hours of 8:00 and 11:00 p.m.
[16] When Mother took the stand, she testified that P.M. would not be allowed to
reside in her home upon his release from State custody. Mother described her
relationship with P.M. as “toxic” and further stated that P.M. was “very
disrespectful, and rude, and arrogant; [and] treats females horribly.” Tr. Vol. II
p. 119. Mother stated that she believed that P.M. posed a safety risk for her
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2365 | February 18, 2020 Page 9 of 16
other children at home due to his violent behavior and the fact that he
continuously brought drugs into the home.
[17] The juvenile court rejected P.M.’s request to be placed on home detention with
Father. Specifically, the juvenile court took issue with arguments raised by
P.M. claiming that he had never been treated for an autism diagnosis. After
reviewing P.M.’s history of delinquency adjudications, the juvenile court
concluded that the most suitable placement for P.M. was a commitment to the
DOC:
I have not let this child down. I have not institutionalized this
child. I have done everything I can do since I’ve been a judge, to
try to help this child.
Ms. Schilling looked up for me this week, how much money has
been spent to try to help this child. Can you believe over
$300,000 has been spent to try to help this child? So, don’t give
me that crap of you’re not doing enough for him, we’ve done
plenty for him. We have done every gamut of service that I can
think of. He’s had homebound services. He’s been in residential
treatment. He’s been with the Department of Corrections of
Johnson County. He’s been on home detention. He’s failed
them all.
Tr. Vol. II pp. 127. In its dispositional order, the juvenile court took judicial
notice of the other cases in which P.M. had previously been ordered into
“services, placement, and wardships[,]” namely, cause numbers 16C01-1506-
JD-172, 16C01-1410-JD-318, 16C01-1408-JD-221, 16C01-1305-JM-77, 16C01-
1202-JC-37, 16C01-0911-JC-310, and 16C01-0904-JM-109. Appellant’s App.
Vol. II p. 94. The juvenile court granted wardship over P.M.to the DOC for an
indeterminate term.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2365 | February 18, 2020 Page 10 of 16
Discussion and Decision
[18] P.M. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering him
committed to the DOC for an indeterminate time. A juvenile court is accorded
“wide latitude” and “great flexibility” in its dealings with juveniles. J.S. v. State,
881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “[T]he choice of a specific disposition
of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent child is a matter within the sound
discretion of the juvenile court and will only be reversed if there has been an
abuse of that discretion.” Id. The juvenile court’s discretion in determining a
disposition is subject to the statutory considerations of the welfare of the child,
the safety of the community, and the policy of favoring the least-harsh
disposition. Id. 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 it. Id.
[19] The goal of the juvenile process is rehabilitation rather than punishment. R.H.
v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Accordingly, juvenile
courts have a variety of placement options for juveniles with delinquency
problems, none of which are considered sentences.” Id. Indiana Code section
31-37-18-6(1)(A) provides that “[i]f consistent with the safety of the community
and the best interest of the child, the juvenile court shall enter a dispositional
decree that is in the least restrictive (most family like) and most appropriate
setting available.” “[T]he statute contains language that reveals that a more
restrictive placement might be appropriate under certain circumstances.” J.S.,
881 N.E.2d at 29. The law requires only that the disposition selected be the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2365 | February 18, 2020 Page 11 of 16
least restrictive disposition that is “consistent with the safety of the community
and the best interest of the child.” D.S. v. State, 829 N.E.2d 1081, 1085 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2005).
[20] Here, neither P.M.’s interests nor those of his community are best served by a
placement outside of the DOC. P.M.’s history indicates that his many
placements, both in an out of the DOC, have failed to reform him. Prior to the
delinquency adjudications at issue in this appeal, P.M. was found delinquent
for committing battery resulting in bodily injury, criminal trespass, escape,
conversion, and leaving home without permission. P.M. has been placed on
probation several times and has violated the terms of probation several times.
At least once previously, P.M. was placed on home detention but was
terminated from the program after cutting his monitoring device from his ankle.
The resulting escape charge, as well as other violations of the terms of
probation, led to P.M.’s commitment to the DOC in April 2017. After his
release, P.M. was returned to the DOC for violating parole in March of 2018.
P.M. was again released in May 2018 and remained on parole until November
of that year, only to commit the theft-related offenses in Cause No. 53 three
months later.
[21] Moreover, P.M. has a long history of violent behavior that includes multiple
batteries involving Mother, Mother’s boyfriend, his grandmother, and another
juvenile placed at the Youth Opportunity Center with P.M. In 2011, P.M.
expressed “homicidal ideation” toward the son of Mother’s boyfriend. Ex. Vol.
p. 30. On one occasion during his previous commitment to the DOC, P.M.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2365 | February 18, 2020 Page 12 of 16
disclosed to medical staff that he had been “waiting all day to cut somebody
up.” Ex. 1 p. 31. Not only has P.M.’s behavior not improved over time, it has
worsened: during P.M.’s detention pending disposition in this cases at issue in
this appeal, he accrued thirteen disciplinary reports while housed in the JCJDC,
one of which was for spitting on female residents while another involved an
incident where he struck a staff member.
[22] It is undisputed that P.M. suffers from several mental-health and behavioral
disorders that are, to varying degrees, related to his delinquent acts. Past
services, however, have not been effective. As Dr. Keris opined, P.M. is
generally “quite resistant to treatment” for these illnesses. Ex. 1 p. 33. Past
services ordered for P.M. include counseling, home-based services, and
inpatient residential treatment programs, none of which have taken. P.M.
refused outright to participate in home-based treatment sessions and out-of-
home therapy when ordered into services in the past. Most recently, P.M. was
ordered into a residential placement at Fayette Regional Care in 2018, which
ended in P.M.’s unsuccessful termination from the program after he was
observed making gang signs to his peers and found in possession of tobacco
products in his room. According to Dr. Keris, P.M.’s “reported mental health
symptoms appear [] to almost be a source of pride and validation for poor
behaviors and while he endorsed several problems, behavioral observations
contradicted them all.” Ex. 1 p. 31. In summary, P.M.’s history is one of
worsening behavior and failure of all previous attempts to address it. We see
little in the record to suggest that a less-restrictive placement will work this time.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2365 | February 18, 2020 Page 13 of 16
[23] P.M. points to Rebecca Kime’s testimony to support his argument that the
juvenile court should have ordered a placement less restrictive than the DOC.
Kime testified that placement in Father’s home was in P.M.’s best interests
because it would permit him to receive treatment for autism spectrum disorder,
for which P.M. had never before been treated through court-ordered services.
Kime never testified, however, that there was any kind of causal nexus linking
P.M.’s delinquent behavior to his autism diagnosis, and P.M.’s autism
diagnosis was rejected by Dr. Keris during P.M.’s diagnostic evaluation in any
event. The juvenile court was under no obligation to credit Kime’s testimony
and did not. P.M.’s argument is an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which
we will not do. See J.S. v. State, 110 N.E.3d 1173, 1175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018),
trans. denied.
[24] P.M. also relies on two cases, R.A. v. State, 936 N.E.2d 1289 (Ind. Ct. App.
2010), and E.H. v. State, 764 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied, in
which we overturned juvenile court dispositions for juveniles with serious
mental illnesses. While P.M. is correct that both he and the respondent in R.A.
have histories that include diagnosed psychological illnesses, the two cases are
otherwise easily distinguished. In R.A., we reversed the juvenile court’s
decision to commit the respondent to the DOC because the respondent, unlike
P.M., had “no prior contact with the juvenile justice system” and because
multiple mental-health experts testified—with the State’s agreement—that
placement in a residential facility was in the best interests of both the child and
the community. R.A., 936 N.E.2d at 1291. As mentioned, P.M. has had many
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2365 | February 18, 2020 Page 14 of 16
unsuccessful contacts with the juvenile justice system, and there is certainly no
consensus that he is suffering from serious mental illness or that residential
placement is in his, or the community’s, best interests.
[25] In E.H., 764 N.E.2d at 686, we reversed a juvenile’s commitment to the DOC
after concluding that the record established that the juvenile had made
“considerable progress” while undergoing treatment in a less-restrictive
placement and that his lack of a history of violence meant that he presented no
threat to the community. E.H., like R.A., is easily distinguished. In contrast to
the juvenile in E.H., P.M. has no history of success in less-restrictive
placements, and the escalating seriousness of his criminal behavior supports a
conclusion that he does, in fact, pose a threat to the community. P.M.’s
reliance on R.A. and E.H. is unavailing.
[26] Finally, P.M. argues that he should have been placed with Father. As the
juvenile court concluded, however, Father is an inappropriate placement for
P.M. due to his undisputed criminal history, history of family violence, and
historical lack of involvement with P.M. Father himself acknowledged during
the dispositional hearing that he had essentially “abandoned” P.M. Tr. Vol. II
p. 65. Moreover, Father’s safety plan for P.M. would have required P.M. to be
away from home for between twelve and sixteen hours each day with lengthy
periods of time spent without adult supervision. The safety plan would permit
P.M. to work with Father for a maximum of nine hours per day, with the
remaining time being spent alone and unsupervised in a room at Father’s place
of employment while Father continued to work. In sum, P.M. is asking to be
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2365 | February 18, 2020 Page 15 of 16
placed with a father who has never parented him before and for us to endorse a
safety plan that fails to provide the structure and supervision necessary to
ensure that he receives the educational and rehabilitative services that he
requires. P.M. has not established that a placement with Father would be in
either his or the community’s best interests.
[27] The juvenile court’s decision to order P.M. committed to the DOC was not an
abuse of its broad statutory discretion. The record supports a conclusion that
P.M. is likely to benefit most from a highly restrictive placement in the DOC, as
it is the only placement that both ensures P.M. has access to treatment while
preventing him from committing new delinquent acts. We conclude that the
juvenile court’s decision was not contrary to the facts and circumstances before
it.
[28] We affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-2365 | February 18, 2020 Page 16 of 16