C.B., Appellant-Respondent, v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] C.B. admitted to the juvenile court that he had entered a home while masked and carrying a firearm. Upon entering, he ordered the occupant to get on the ground at gunpoint and then searched the home.

[2] Based on C.B.’s admissions, the court determined he was a juvenile delinquent. The court placed him in the custody of the Department of Correction (“DOC”). C.B. claims the juvenile court should have placed him in a less restrictive setting. Concluding the court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History 1

[3] On May 9, 2024, seventeen-year-old C.B., his mother, and a companion arrived at an apartment complex, looking for “K.T.” Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 28. C.B. believed K.T. had stolen items from C.B.’s mother. The trio had purchased masks in preparation for confronting K.T. Unfortunately, they mistakenly approached the apartment of Kamri Allen.

[4] When Allen responded to a knock on his front door, he saw C.B. and his companions, wearing masks. C.B. pointed a gun at Allen and ordered him to get on the floor. They asked him about K.T., but he denied knowing anyone with that name. After searching the apartment, C.B. and his companions left and got into a car. As the car sped away, Allen fired several gunshots. The police later found five .22 caliber shell casings on the ground outside of the apartment.

[5] Police officers were advised to look for a tan four-door sedan driving away from the apartment complex. An officer located and stopped a car matching that description and discovered three occupants, all wearing dark clothing: C.B., C.B.’s mother, and C.B.’s companion. An officer searched the car and found a .22 caliber handgun and the masks.

[6] After the police took C.B., his mother, and his companion into custody, they made C.B. submit to a urinalysis test. The results showed cannabinoids in his system, and he admitted to smoking marijuana.

[7] The State requested and received permission to file a delinquency petition, alleging C.B. had committed numerous acts that would be crimes if committed by an adult. The State also filed charges against C.B.’s mother arising from the incident.

[8] C.B. later admitted to committing the following delinquent acts: (1) residential entry, which would have been a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult; (2) pointing a firearm, which would have been a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult; and (3) unlawful carrying of a firearm, which would have been a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. The court accepted C.B.’s plea and determined he was both a delinquent child and a violent offender.

[9] Next, the court held a dispositional hearing. After hearing the parties’ arguments, the court placed C.B. at the DOC. This appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[10] C.B. argues the juvenile court erred in placing him with the Department of Correction. He claims his “best interest would have been far better served by a different resolution[.]” Appellant's Br. p. 16.

[11] A juvenile court must consider “[a]lternatives for the care, treatment, rehabilitation, or placement of the child” at a dispositional hearing. Ind. Code § 31-37-18-1(1) (1997). The General Assembly further requires a juvenile court to keep in mind the following factors

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.

Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6 (1997).

[12] Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 “allows for a more restrictive placement under certain circumstances.” M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 459 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. In particular, “the statute recognizes that in certain circumstances the best interest of the child is better served by a more restrictive placement because commitment to a public institution is in the best interest of the juvenile and society.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).

[13] We reverse a juvenile court's disposition decision “only for an abuse of discretion, that is, a decision that 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.” K.S. v. State, 114 N.E.3d 849, 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied.

[14] In C.B.’s case, the juvenile court discussed a wide range of possible placements for C.B.: (1) C.B.’s mother or father; (2) the county juvenile detention center; (3) a relative in Fulton County; (4) a residential treatment facility; and (5) the DOC. The court explained why each of the alternatives to the DOC was inadequate and why the DOC was the most appropriate placement despite being the most restrictive. In particular, the court noted that although C.B.’s juvenile history was minor, his delinquent acts in the current case were violent, and he posed a danger to the community. In addition, the court stated Indiana's two DOC juvenile facilities for males “have terrific programs” such as computer training. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 28. By contrast, the county's juvenile detention facility did not offer the same programs and would not meet C.B.’s needs.

[15] C.B. cites to C.H. v. State, 201 N.E.3d. 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), in which the Court reversed a juvenile court's decision to place a delinquent at the DOC. But C.H. is distinguishable from C.B.’s case. Although the juvenile in C.H.’s case had drawn and fired a handgun, he allegedly did so in self-defense. As a result, he was accused of merely possessing the handgun unlawfully. By contrast, C.B. invaded Allen's home and pointed a gun at him. The holding in C.H. does not compel us to reverse the juvenile court in the current case. We instead conclude the juvenile court acted within its discretion in placing C.B. with the DOC. See B.K.C. v. State, 781 N.E.2d 1157, 1171-72 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (juvenile court did not abuse discretion by placing delinquent at DOC for committing act of robbery; delinquent pointed handgun at restaurant employee).

Conclusion

[16] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

[17] Affirmed.

Baker, Senior Judge.

Vaidik, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.