L.E. 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
Dec 11 2019, 10:37 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
Katherine N. Worman Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Worman Legal Attorney General of Indiana
Evansville, Indiana
Sierra A. Murray
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
L.E., December 11, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-JV-1680
v. Appeal from the
Vanderburgh Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff Brett J. Niemeier, Judge
The Honorable
Renee A. Ferguson, Magistrate
Trial Court Cause Nos.
82D04-1812-JD-2339
82D04-1902-JD-233
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1680 | December 11, 2019 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] L.E. appeals the juvenile court’s order committing him to the custody of the
Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In January 2019, sixteen-year-old L.E. was adjudicated a delinquent for theft, a
Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult; possession of a controlled
substance, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult; possession of
marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult; public
intoxication, a Class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult; and criminal
mischief, a Class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult. L.E. was placed on
probation and ordered to be on home detention with electronic monitoring.
[3] Less than three weeks later, while on home detention, L.E. removed his
electronic-monitoring bracelet. Thereafter, the State filed a delinquency
petition alleging that L.E. committed escape, a Level 6 felony if committed by
an adult. On February 8, L.E. admitted that his conduct constituted escape.
L.E.’s attorney argued that he should stay on home detention so that he can
“assist with his Grandmother” and be there for the birth of his child (due in
June). The probation department recommended that L.E. be placed on the
Community Service Platoon (CPS) at the Southwest Indiana Regional Youth
Village. The juvenile court so ordered.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1680 | December 11, 2019 Page 2 of 7
[4] In March, the juvenile court held a review hearing. L.E.’s probation officer
reported that L.E. had “completely struggled with the CPS program,”
“destroyed property within the CPS program,” and “made very little progress.”
Tr. p. 21. When asked by the court which property L.E. destroyed, his
probation officer explained, “He flipped tables and some chairs and basically
destroyed the book shelves.” Id. at 22. The juvenile court warned L.E. that if
this type of behavior continued, “I’m sending you to the Department of
Correction—prison.” Id. At that time, however, the juvenile court ordered that
L.E. remain at the Youth Village to see if the court’s warning would lead L.E.
“to realize the importance of controlling himself.” Id. at 25.
[5] In May, the juvenile court held another review hearing. L.E.’s probation officer
reported that “[t]hings just generally haven’t been going well.” Id. at 28. She
explained that there was recently an incident where L.E. “went off campus and
was attempting to get cigarettes and a lighter from . . . workers at Wabash
foods.” Id. L.E.’s probation officer recommended that he remain at the Youth
Village, and the juvenile court agreed.
[6] In June, the State filed a motion alleging that L.E.’s “placement is no longer
suitable due to his continued behavioral issues and defiance.” Appellant’s App.
Vol. II p. 132. The State also noted that L.E. had not made any progress since
he was admitted to the Youth Village in February. At the hearing on the State’s
motion to modify, L.E. admitted that his placement at the Youth Village was
no longer available and that he did not make progress in that program. L.E.’s
probation officer recommended that L.E. be placed at the Youth Care Center
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1680 | December 11, 2019 Page 3 of 7
for a ninety-day secure detention. L.E.’s attorney emphasized that L.E. is
expecting a child and argued that he should be allowed “to serve his time on
home detention,” or in the alternative, “some sort of split between the two.
The first portion at [the Youth Care Center]. If his behavior is appropriate at
[the Youth Care Center] and he earns the privilege, then allow him to step
down to home detention.” Tr. pp. 33-34. The juvenile court ordered that L.E.
be placed at the Youth Care Center for ninety days, but said that after forty-five
days, if L.E. followed all the rules, the court would consider putting L.E. on
home detention for his final thirty days. See id. at 35. The court acknowledged
that this meant that L.E. would not be able to see the birth of his baby.
[7] In July, the State filed another motion alleging that L.E.’s “placement is no
longer suitable due to his continued behavior issues and defiance. [L.E.] is
regressing since his placement at the Youth Care Center by receiving a
considerable amount of incident reports and lock downs since his placement [in
June].” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 136. The State also noted, “The Youth
Care Center is requesting [L.E.’s] removal at this time.” Id. At the hearing on
the State’s motion, L.E.’s probation officer recommended that he be placed at
the DOC because L.E. has been given “several opportunities throughout
probation and he has been unsuccessful.” Tr. p. 44. The State agreed with the
probation department’s recommendation and reiterated “the number of
opportunities that [L.E.] has been given in alternative placements and he
continues to escalate, and . . . he has continued to escalate to the point where it
is a grave concern that he is taunting staff at the [Youth Care Center].” Id. at
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1680 | December 11, 2019 Page 4 of 7
45. L.E.’s attorney argued that the juvenile court “keep the Department of
Correction[] under advisement . . . [and] order [L.E.] back in another two
weeks and see if he’s maintained” good behavior. Id. at 55. L.E.’s attorney
emphasized L.E.’s desire “to be here for his Grandma” and “his son.” Id. At
the end of the hearing, the juvenile court said that it “examined [L.E.’s]
delinquency history [and] looked at the rehabilitative measures that have been
tried with [L.E],” and in the court’s mind, “[L.E.’s] been given ample
opportunity to show that he’s capable of rehabilitation and thereby being an
appropriate member to keep in our community. But he has failed to do that.”
Id. The juvenile court ordered L.E. committed to the DOC.
[8] L.E. now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[9] L.E. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it concluded
that he should be committed to the DOC. The disposition of a juvenile is
within the juvenile court’s discretion. K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind.
2006). We will reverse a juvenile disposition only upon a showing that the
juvenile court abused its discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the
disposition 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.” Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1680 | December 11, 2019 Page 5 of 7
[10] Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 guides the court’s disposition of a juvenile. In
part, the statute states, “If 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.” Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. L.E. claims that the juvenile court’s
disposition violates Section 31-37-18-6 because his commitment to the DOC is
not the least restrictive option available. L.E. contends that the juvenile court
“failed to consider the special circumstances surrounding [his] life” before
ordering him into the custody of the DOC. Appellant’s Br. p. 10.
[11] The record shows that L.E. was given numerous opportunities to rehabilitate
himself. Specifically, L.E. was offered and failed in three different placements,
including: home detention with electronic monitoring, the Youth Village, and
the Youth Care Center. First, while on home detention, L.E. committed a new
criminal offense—escape—by removing his electronic-monitoring bracelet.
Then, while placed at the Youth Village, L.E. routinely failed to comply with
the conditions of his placement. Finally, while placed at the Youth Care
Center, L.E.’s behaviors escalated, and he began taunting staff. L.E. has
demonstrated that he is unable to do what is required of him without being in a
heavily structured and supervised environment. To the extent that L.E. argues
that the juvenile court did not consider the “special circumstances” surrounding
his life, we disagree. L.E.’s attorney repeatedly argued that L.E.’s grandmother
and child should be considered when determining his placement. Because the
record shows that the “special circumstances” surrounding L.E.’s life were
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1680 | December 11, 2019 Page 6 of 7
before the juvenile court, we will not second guess its reasons for committing
L.E. to the DOC. Accordingly, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion
when it committed L.E. to the custody of the DOC.
[12] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1680 | December 11, 2019 Page 7 of 7