Opinion
24A-JV-1891
12-23-2024
C.C., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Amy E. Karozos State Public Defender Indianapolis, Indiana Nathan M. Psimos Lake County Juvenile Public Defender Crown Point, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Monika Prekopa Talbot Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Lake Superior Court The Honorable Thomas P. Stefaniak, Jr., Judge The Honorable Jeffrey Miller, Magistrate Trial Court Cause Nos. 45D06-2312-JD-852 45D06-2403-JD-133 45D06-2405-JD-280
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Amy E. Karozos State Public Defender Indianapolis, Indiana Nathan M. Psimos Lake County Juvenile Public Defender Crown Point, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Monika Prekopa Talbot Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Brown, Judge.
[¶1] C.C. appeals the juvenile court's order committing him to the Indiana Department of Correction ("DOC"). We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] On December 8, 2023, under cause number 45D06-2312-JD-852 ("Cause No. 852"), the State filed a petition alleging that C.C., who was born in June 2008, committed delinquent acts which would constitute strangulation as a level 6 felony and domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor, if committed by an adult. Pursuant to a plea agreement, C.C. admitted to committing domestic battery and the State dismissed the strangulation allegation. During a hearing on January 25, 2024, the court accepted the agreement, adjudicated C.C. a delinquent child as defined by Ind. Code § 31-37-1-1, and placed him on probation for six months. The Lake County Juvenile Probation Department was given responsibility for C.C.'s placement and care. On March 16, 2024, the State filed a motion for modification of placement after C.C. left his home without permission, failed to return, and his whereabouts were unknown.
[¶3] On March 19, 2024, under cause number 45D06-2403-JD-133 ("Cause No. 133"), the State filed a petition alleging that C.C. committed delinquent acts which would constitute auto theft as a level 6 felony, two counts of unlawful entry into a motor vehicle as a class A misdemeanor, and three counts of criminal mischief as class B misdemeanors, if committed by an adult. During a hearing on April 25, 2024, C.C. admitted to one count of unlawful entry into a vehicle and one count of criminal mischief. C.C. also admitted that he violated his probation by leaving his home without permission and stealing a vehicle. C.C.'s mother testified that C.C.'s behavioral "issues" had been occurring for about two years, that his therapy was not working as he had run away several times even after starting therapy, and that she was very concerned for his wellbeing. Transcript Volume II at 55. C.C.'s grandmother also testified that her grandson continually made bad decisions, his behavior was a "huge problem," and his therapy was not working. Id. at 59. On April 30, 2024, the court entered its dispositional order which provided for C.C. to be released from the Lake County Juvenile Center ("LCJC") and placed in his mother's custody on "Level 2" in-home detention which required that C.C. wear an ankle monitor. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 132.
[¶4] On May 4, 2024, under cause number 45D06-2405-JD-280 ("Cause No. 280"), the State filed a petition alleging that C.C. committed delinquent acts which would constitute auto theft as a level 6 felony, resisting law enforcement as a level 6 felony, and reckless driving as a class C misdemeanor, if committed by an adult. Pursuant to a plea agreement, C.C. admitted to committing resisting law enforcement. In entering its disposition, the court found:
The juvenile has a prior history with the Court. The juvenile was already on probation for Domestic Battery. He was placed on
probation on January 25, 2024. The juvenile was ordered to participate in Family Preservation Services. The juvenile was compliant with services until he ran away from home on or about March 14, 2024. The juvenile's whereabouts remained unknown for numerous days. This was not the first time the juvenile had left the home without permission.
Probation filed a motion for modification of probation. The juvenile received another referral while on probation. The juvenile was adjudicated for Unauthorized Entry of a Motor Vehicle, an A Misdemeanor on April 25, 2024. The Court took disposition under advisement and released the juvenile from the Lake County Juvenile Center on in-house arrest. The juvenile proceeded to cut off the ankle monitor a mere four days later.
The juvenile was arrested and adjudicated under complaint three, the matter we are here for.
The Probation Department sent out approximately 10 residential placement packets for juvenile. The juvenile was accepted to residential placement at Right of Passage (DePaul Academy).
The Probation Department made the recommendation of placement at Right of Passage (DePaul Academy).
The State of Indiana Recommended the [DOC]. The juvenile requested sentencing at the LCJC. The Court specifically asked the juvenile if he would be open to placement at the residential facility. The juvenile indicated he would not fully participate at residential placement.Id. at 208.
[¶5] Accordingly, the court awarded wardship of C.C. to the DOC for housing in a correctional facility for children. The court found that it was in C.C.'s best interests to be removed from the home environment due to his dangerous behaviors and that reasonable efforts were made by the Probation Department to prevent or eliminate the need for removal. The court further found that such disposition was consistent with the safety and the best interest of C.C.; was the least restrictive and most appropriate setting available close to the parent, guardian, or custodian's home; least interfered with the family's autonomy; was least disruptive of family life; imposed the least restraint on the freedom of C.C. and his parent, guardian, or custodian; and provided a reasonable opportunity for participation by C.C.'s parent, guardian, or custodian.
Discussion
[¶6] C.C. argues that the trial court abused its discretion by placing him in the DOC. The juvenile court is given wide latitude and great flexibility in determining the disposition of a delinquent child. D.A. v. State, 967 N.E.2d 59, 65 (Ind.Ct.App. 2012). However, its discretion is circumscribed by Ind. Code § 31-37-186, which 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" and "close to the parents' home, consistent with the best interest and special needs of the child"; least interferes with family autonomy; is least disruptive of family life; imposes the least restraint on the freedom of the child and the child's parent, guardian, or custodian; and provides a reasonable opportunity for participation by the child's parent, guardian, or custodian. Under the statute, placement in the least restrictive and most appropriate setting available applies only "[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child." J.D. v. State, 859 N.E.2d 341, 346 (Ind. 2007) (citing Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6). We review the juvenile court's disposition for an abuse of discretion. R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010).
[¶7] The record reveals that C.C. has been adjudicated delinquent on three separate occasions, over an extremely short period of time. Following the first adjudication in Cause No. 852, the court attempted a less restrictive disposition by placing C.C. on probation. While on probation, C.C. committed additional, more serious delinquent acts and received his second delinquency adjudication in Cause No. 133. The court again attempted a less restrictive disposition by placing C.C. in the custody of his mother on electronic monitored in-home detention. After just four days, C.C. cut off his ankle bracelet, absconded, and committed additional delinquent acts. Despite multiple opportunities, C.C. has failed to reform his behavior and the serious nature of his offenses continues to escalate.
[¶8] Based upon the record, we conclude that the court's ordered placement is consistent with C.C.'s best interests and the safety of the community. We find no abuse of discretion.
[¶9] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court.
[¶10] Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.