A.B. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 16 2018, 10:29 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Michelle Laux Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
St. Joseph Co. Public Defender’s Office Attorney General of Indiana
South Bend, Indiana
Monika Prekopa Talbot
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
A.B., April 16, 2018
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
71A03-1711-JV-2677
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Probate
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable James N. Fox,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
71J01-1608-JD-244
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1711-JV-2677 | April 16, 2018 Page 1 of 8
Case Summary and Issue
[1] A.B. appeals from the juvenile court’s order modifying its dispositional decree
following his adjudication as a delinquent for attempted theft and battery. A.B.
presents two issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as whether
the juvenile court abused its discretion in detaining A.B. in a juvenile detention
center on multiple occasions resulting in a total of more than ninety days
confined. Concluding the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm
the juvenile court’s modification of its dispositional decree.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On August 4, 2016, fifteen-year-old A.B. committed acts that would constitute
attempted robbery, a Level 5 felony if committed by an adult. A.B. was
arrested and detained at the Juvenile Justice Center in South Bend, Indiana.
On August 10, 2016, in lieu of attempted robbery, the State filed a petition
alleging A.B. to be a delinquent child for committing attempted theft, a Class A
misdemeanor if committed by an adult, and battery, a Class B misdemeanor if
committed by an adult.
[3] On August 19, 2016, A.B. entered into an admission agreement pursuant to
which he agreed to admit to the allegations of attempted theft and battery in
exchange for the State’s agreement not to file an allegation of attempted
robbery. The juvenile court entered true findings and placed A.B. on home
detention for an indefinite term. Pursuant to the juvenile court’s disposition,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1711-JV-2677 | April 16, 2018 Page 2 of 8
A.B. was to attend school with no unexcused absences, tardies, suspensions,
obey all rules and regulations of school, home detention, and his parents,
refrain from using alcohol or any illegal substances, and submit to random drug
screens.
[4] From August 26, 2016 to September 29, 2017, A.B. was detained on eleven
separate occasions and spent a total of at least ninety days in detention.1 A.B.
was detained for failing to abide by the rules and regulations of his home
detention, failing to attend school, leaving school without permission, leaving
home without permission, failing to charge his GPS monitoring device, fighting
with and choking his brother, failing to follow the rules of his parent or
guardian,2 taking a realistic air pistol to school, failing to abide by day reporting
to probation, and testing positive for marijuana on multiple occasions.
[5] The juvenile court issued its final order authorizing A.B.’s detention on
September 29, 2017. On October 3, 2017, the St. Joseph County Probation
Department recommended modifying A.B.’s placement to the Rite of Passage
DePaul Academy, a private child care facility in South Bend. The juvenile
court accepted the probation department’s recommendation and placed A.B. at
the DePaul Academy. A.B. now appeals.
1
A.B. estimates a conservative number of the days he spent in detention is 115 days. Nonetheless, the State
agrees it was at least ninety days.
2
At one point, A.B.’s mother brought him to the Juvenile Justice Center and requested that he be detained,
stating “it is the best thing for him at this time.” Appellant’s Appendix at 111.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1711-JV-2677 | April 16, 2018 Page 3 of 8
Discussion and Decision
[6] A.B. alleges the juvenile court abused its discretion in detaining him in a
juvenile detention center on multiple occasions and for a total of greater than
ninety days. A juvenile court’s specific disposition of 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.” J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d
26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citation omitted).
The juvenile court’s discretion 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. 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,
probable, and actual inferences that can be drawn therefrom.
Hence, the juvenile court is accorded wide latitude and great
flexibility in its dealings with juveniles.
Id. (internal citations omitted).
[7] Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 sets forth the following factors that a juvenile
court must consider when entering a dispositional decree:
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
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1711-JV-2677 | April 16, 2018 Page 4 of 8
(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.
[8] The juvenile court may, in a dispositional decree, order supervision of the child
by the probation department. Ind. Code § 31-37-19-5(b)(1). In addition to
probation, the juvenile court may take any of the following actions:
(A) Award wardship to:
(i) the department of correction for housing in a
correctional facility for children; or
(ii) a community based correctional facility for children.
Wardship under this subdivision does not include the right to
consent to the child’s adoption.
(B) If the child is less than seventeen (17) years of age, order
confinement in a juvenile detention facility for not more than the
lesser of:
(i) ninety (90) days; or
(ii) the maximum term of imprisonment that could have
been imposed on the child if the child had been convicted
as an adult offender for the act that the child committed
under IC 31-37-1 (or IC 31-6-4-1(b)(1) before its repeal).
***
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1711-JV-2677 | April 16, 2018 Page 5 of 8
(F) Place the child in a secure private facility for children licensed
under the laws of a state. Placement under this subdivision
includes authorization to control and discipline the child.
Ind. Code § 31-37-19-6(b)(2).
[9] As noted, within a little over a year after his delinquency adjudication, A.B.
was detained eleven times for various offenses and violations. Due to his
detentions, A.B. spent over ninety days total in the juvenile detention center.
A.B. alleges the juvenile court abused its discretion in this regard because
Indiana Code section 31-37-19-6(b)(2)(B)(i) prohibits his confinement for more
than ninety days. Therefore, he argues he should be discharged from his
placement at the DePaul Academy. We disagree.
[10] The juvenile court did not order A.B. detained in the juvenile detention center
pursuant to a set detention; rather, it ordered A.B. placed on home detention
for his offenses of attempted theft and battery. A.B. would not have been
detained at all had he not repeatedly violated the terms and conditions of his
home detention. A.B.’s own behavior led to his detention for greater than
ninety days and he created the length of his detention with his repeated
violations. Moreover, the juvenile court would have been well within its
discretion to order A.B. committed to the Department of Correction (“DOC”)
for an indeterminate period of time. Ind. Code § 31-37-19-6(b)(2)(A)(1); see also
D.C. v. State, 958 N.E.2d 757, 759 (Ind. 2011) (noting that when a juvenile court
awards wardship of a delinquent child to the DOC, the DOC determines the
juvenile’s placement and duration of placement). A.B. is fortunate, given his
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1711-JV-2677 | April 16, 2018 Page 6 of 8
repeated violations, the juvenile court did not exercise its discretion by
committing him to the DOC. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in
detaining A.B. for his repeated violations of home detention. 3
[11] A.B. also contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in recommitting him
to the juvenile detention facility every time he committed what he characterizes
as “minor infractions.” See Brief of Appellant at 23-25. As noted, among other
numerous offenses, A.B. was detained for testing positive for marijuana on
multiple occasions, fighting and choking his brother, and bringing a realistic air
pistol to school. Characterizing such actions from a fifteen-year-old child
already under the supervision of the State for attempted theft and battery as
“minor infractions” is disingenuous and ignores the facts of the case. Further,
A.B. offers no suggestions of what the juvenile court should have done in
response to A.B.’s repeated violations. The juvenile court originally placed
A.B. in home detention, which was minimally restrictive and permitted A.B. to
live at home and attend school. See Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6(1). Three weeks
after being placed on home detention, A.B. committed his first violation and
demonstrated to the juvenile court he was unable or unwilling to abide by the
rules and regulations of home detention. Over the course of the ensuing
months, A.B. committed ten more violations and the juvenile court gradually
3
Even assuming the juvenile court improperly detained A.B. in a juvenile detention facility for more than
ninety days, his current placement at DePaul Academy is not an abuse of discretion. Pursuant to Indiana
Code section 31-37-19-6(b)(2), the juvenile court possessed the authority to place A.B. in a “a community
based correctional facility for children” or “a secure private facility for children licensed under the laws of a
state.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1711-JV-2677 | April 16, 2018 Page 7 of 8
increased the duration of his detentions as his case progressed. Given the
juvenile court’s original leniency in A.B.’s placement and A.B.’s abuse thereof,
we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in detaining A.B. in the
juvenile detention center for his multiple violations.
Conclusion
[12] The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in detaining A.B. in a juvenile
detention center on multiple occasions and for greater than ninety days in total.
Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s order modifying its dispositional
decree.
[13] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1711-JV-2677 | April 16, 2018 Page 8 of 8