Opinion
23A-JV-3083
06-21-2024
M.L., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Nancy A. McCaslin McCaslin & McCaslin Elkhart, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Megan M. Smith 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Elkhart Circuit Court The Honorable Michael A. Christofeno, Judge The Honorable Elizabeth A. Bellin, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 20C01-2212-JD-388
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Nancy A. McCaslin McCaslin & McCaslin Elkhart, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Megan M. Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Weissmann, Judge.
[¶1] M.L. was adjudicated a delinquent and placed on probation for the adult equivalent of battery. While on probation, M.L., then 17 years old, possessed a firearm, engaged in activities that suggested gang membership, and generally was defiant and non-compliant with the juvenile court's directives. After eight residential facilities refused to admit him based on his age, behavior, and attitude, the juvenile court committed M.L. to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC).
[¶2] On appeal, M.L. contends the sanction was too harsh. We affirm, finding the trial court correctly concluded that the DOC commitment was the least restrictive sanction consistent with M.L.'s best interests and community safety.
Facts
[¶3] M.L. was living in Kalamazoo, Michigan, when his mother arranged to have him live with his grandmother in Elkhart, Indiana, to avoid gang contact in Kalamazoo. In August 2022-four months before his 17th birthday-M.L. was involved in a fight with another student at Elkhart High School. M.L. ultimately admitted to engaging in conduct that would equate to battery, a Class B misdemeanor, if committed by an adult.
[¶4] The juvenile court adjudicated M.L. a delinquent and placed him on "Probation Supervision" in January 2023. App. Vol. II, p. 43. The court ordered M.L., among other things, to attend school daily, participate in the Promise Academy for Conflict Transformation and Jobs for Life programs, and undergo a substance abuse assessment if his drug test was positive. The terms of M.L.'s probation barred him from using, possessing, or exerting control over any firearms and from possessing any knife or other weapon that could be used to cause serious bodily injury.
[¶5] The next month, M.L. admitted engaging in conduct that, if committed by an adult, would constitute disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor. He was again adjudicated a delinquent, although that proceeding ultimately was dismissed because he already was receiving services in the earlier battery proceeding. In April 2023, M.L. was referred to the juvenile court for a curfew violation, although no action was taken on the allegation.
[¶6] M.L. tested positive for marijuana each of the five times he was screened during the first three months of his probation in the battery adjudication proceeding. After he was advised in late April 2023 that any further positive drug tests would be treated as a probation violation, M.L. tested negative for drugs on May 17 and 23. But the same month, he tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine as part of the substance abuse assessment.
[¶7] The assessment resulted in a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and unspecified stimulant-related disorder. The assessor also recommended that M.L. begin participating in an intensive outpatient drug program in late May. While in that program, M.L. tested negative for drugs four times in June and regularly attended his probation meetings. M.L. also completed the Promise Academy for Conflict Transformation.
[¶8] Nine months after M.L. was placed on probation, M.L.'s probation officer searched M.L.'s cell phone and found photographs of various guns, including a picture dated September 22, 2023. In one of the photographs, M.L. is holding a gun. M.L.'s phone also contained text messages that reflected marijuana transactions and a $100 payment to M.L.
[¶9] M.L. tested positive for marijuana both in September and October. He was discharged for non-participation and/or absences from his substance abuse treatment program, as well as other programs that he had been ordered to complete. M.L. also violated school attendance requirements. As of October 12, 2023, he had accrued 12.5 unexcused absences and 16 tardies since the start of school. He had failed all his in-person classes during the first six-week school term and had shown no effort in his Apex Credit Recovery classes.
[¶10] Ten months after M.L. was placed on probation, his probation officer petitioned to modify the dispositional decree. The petition alleged M.L. had violated the terms of his probation through school absences and performance, drug use, possession of weapons, and failure to complete substance abuse treatment and other rehabilitative programs.
[¶11] At the initial hearing on the petition to modify, M.L. admitted all the alleged probation violations. The juvenile court requested the probation department investigate residential placement options. After the dispositional hearing, M.L.'s probation officer revealed that eight residential facilities for juveniles had rejected M.L., then 17 years old, based on his behavior, age, or perceived lack of amenability to rehabilitation.
[¶12] At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court noted that M.L.'s actions while on probation harmed himself and the community. As the court observed, such actions would result in a prison sentence if committed after M.L.'s 18th birthday less than a month later. Given M.L.'s behaviors, including his suspected gang involvement, and M.L.'s failure to embrace rehabilitation, the court viewed home placement as inappropriate for M.L. and community safety. Residential placement was not an option, according to the court, because no facility had been willing to accept him due to his age, actions, or perceived non-amenability to rehabilitation.
[¶13] The juvenile court therefore granted the petition to modify and awarded wardship of M.L. to DOC "for housing in any correctional facility for children." App. Vol. II, p. 88. M.L. appeals that modified disposition.
Discussion and Decision
[¶14] M.L. contends that the juvenile court erred in committing him to DOC because, in his view, a less restrictive alternative would have sufficed. The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is within the discretion of the juvenile court and is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of 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, probable, and actual inferences drawn therefrom." A.C. v. State, 144 N.E.3d 810, 812-13 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020).
[¶15] The court's discretion is subject to Indiana Code § 31-37-18-6:
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
(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.
This statute favors the least harsh placement only if "consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child." J.S., 881 N.E.2d at 29. The statute thus recognizes that a more restrictive placement is sometimes in the best interest of the child. Id.
[¶16] M.L. attacks the reasons that the juvenile court offered to support its decision to commit him to the DOC. M.L. contends the evidence showed he was amenable to some treatment and that his gang membership was only suspected, not proven. M.L. also argues that truancy is a status offense that is treated differently from acts that would constitute a crime if committed by an adult. See, e.g., Ind. Code § 31-37-19-1 (specifying that a status offender may not be committed to the DOC as an initial disposition). Finally, M.L. claims placement with his mother in Michigan was more appropriate and less restrictive than a DOC commitment.
[¶17] M.L. ignores the substantial evidence that he generally spiraled after being placed on probation. Most disturbingly, his phone reflected several illicit activities. M.L.'s text messages, as well as his receipt of a $100 payment around the time of the apparent drug transactions, suggested he was dealing drugs. M.L. had tested positive for marijuana intermittently and for methamphetamine/amphetamines once-further evidence that M.L. was involved with illegal drugs.
[¶18] The photographs on M.L.'s phone provided disturbing evidence of his other illicit activities. Two photographs that he admitted taking depicted a marijuana blunt and raw marijuana. Other photographs showed various guns, including a "semi-automatic firearm with an extended clip[,]", and M.L. holding one of the guns. Id. at 76. The trial court also found that numerous videos on M.L.'s phone show M.L. pointing firearms at other individuals with gang affiliations. M.L. admittedly was associating with known gang members. He even wore to a court hearing a red sweatshirt depicting the photograph of a known gang member. M.L. wore the same sweatshirt in the photograph found on his phone that showed him holding a gun.
[¶19] Although he denied gang membership, M.L. emulated the attire and hand signs commonly used by gangs. These acts are particularly troubling given that gang activities had led his mother to move M.L. from Kalamazoo to his grandmother's home in Elkhart. M.L.'s teacher, who testified on his behalf at the dispositional hearing, noted that M.L.'s disorderly conduct adjudication arose from an incident in which M.L. was "hanging out" with purported gang members. Tr. Vol. II, p. 72.
[¶20] M.L.'s school performance also deteriorated on probation. During the most recent six-week term, he was absent from school about 1/3 of the time and tardy on other days. He had failed all his classes during that period.
[¶21] M.L. appears to acknowledge that continued placement with his grandmother was not a viable option. But M.L. suggests that placement with his mother in Kalamazoo was an appropriate placement less restrictive than a DOC commitment. The juvenile court specifically addressed this alternative, finding:
Due to the concerns that brought Child to Indiana from Kalamazoo at the inception of this case, an alternative placement back with Mother in Kalamazoo is not within [M.L.'s] best interest and is not a viable placement that can ensure safety for both the Child and the community.App. Vol. II, p. 98.
[¶22] This finding is supported by the evidence. M.L.'s mother moved M.L. based on concerns about gang activities in her area, and the record contains no evidence that those activities no longer exist in Kalamazoo. Moreover, as the juvenile court found, home placement-whether in Elkhart or in Kalamazoo-simply was no longer an option, given the escalation in M.L.'s illicit activities and his failure to complete rehabilitative services.
[¶23] Although the juvenile court ordered the probation department to investigate residential placement options, it found none. After eight residential facilities refused to accept M.L., the juvenile court determined it had only one viable option to protect and assist M.L. and to ensure community safety: DOC wardship of M.L. But even if there had been less restrictive placements available, we view this case as one where "commitment to a suitable public institution is in the 'best interest' of the juvenile and of society." D.S. v. State, 829 N.E.2d 1081, 1085 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005). M.L.'s escalating, dangerous behaviors-particularly, his involvement with drugs and guns-and his failure to embrace rehabilitative programs justify the juvenile court's placement of M.L. with DOC. See K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382, 387 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) (noting that confinement may be one of the most effective rehabilitative techniques available for a juvenile).
[¶24] As the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering M.L.'s commitment to DOC, we affirm the court's judgment.
Vaidik, J., and Foley, J., concur.