K.M., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] K.M. appeals the St. Joseph Probate Court's order granting wardship over him to the Indiana Department of Correction. K.M. raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it granted wardship over him to the Department of Correction.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] K.M.’s first referral to the juvenile system, a criminal mischief allegation, occurred when he was eight years old. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 48. Then, in 2020, when he was eleven, K.M. was placed on formal probation for criminal recklessness, a Level 6 Felony if committed by an adult. That offense involved a firearm. Id. K.M.’s formal probation term lasted from January 26, 2021, to June 2, 2021. Id. at 43.

[4] Approximately two years later, the juvenile court placed fourteen-year-old K.M. on a second term of formal probation for resisting law enforcement and possession of a controlled substance, both Class A misdemeanors if committed by an adult. The term started on August 1, 2023, and, due to probation violations, the juvenile court modified the term by ordering K.M. to complete a twenty-eight-day inpatient substance abuse treatment program in Wabash. K.M. successfully completed the program and was discharged from probation on March 26, 2024.

[5] K.M.’s behavior in school has also long been problematic. In high school, for example, K.M. received twenty-three disciplinary referrals, which resulted in seven out-of-school suspensions, five in-school suspensions, and seven detentions. K.M. had several referrals for disrupting class, verbally threatening teachers and staff, and refusing to comply with multiple school policies.

[6] Four months after the end of his second term of probation, in the early morning hours of July 25, 2024, an officer arrested K.M. for resisting law enforcement, dangerous possession of a firearm, and possession of marijuana. Id. at 16. Specifically, on the evening of July 24, K.M. was at a juvenile's birthday party at a venue in South Bend. Around 10:00 p.m., some guests were escorted out by the venue's staff due to a fight that had occurred during the party.

[7] Around that same time, South Bend Police Department Officer Quentin Phillips saw a group of juveniles leaving the venue and walking toward a nearby Kroger gas station. Some of the venue's staff told Officer Phillips that they believed the juveniles were gathering elsewhere to fight. Later, Officer Phillips observed two juvenile males running into the street. At approximately 12:45 a.m., Officer Phillips drove to the area and activated his vehicle's emergency lights. Officer Phillips exited his patrol vehicle and approached eight juveniles to find out if they had been fighting or if anyone was injured. The juveniles walked away from Officer Phillips, and he told them to stop. Four of the juveniles complied and told Officer Phillips that they were waiting for a ride home; the other four juveniles did not stop after multiple requests to do so. K.M. was one of the four juveniles who failed to comply with Officer Phillips's request to stop walking. Officer Phillips attempted to detain K.M. by grabbing his wrist, positioning his body on the hood of his vehicle, and attempting to place him in handcuffs. K.M. tried multiple times to get out of Officer Phillips's grasp and eventually ran away after wriggling out of the hoodie he was wearing.

[8] As K.M. was running away from Officer Phillips, K.M. dropped a Glock 17 handgun. Id. at 17. Officer Phillips secured the firearm while another officer pursued and arrested K.M. Id. Officer Phillips observed that the firearm had a Glock switch on it, a mechanism that converts the firearm to a fully automatic firearm. And, while inspecting the hoodie K.M. left behind, officers found four packages of marijuana.

[9] Thereafter, the State filed a petition alleging that K.M. was a delinquent child and had committed what would have been Level 5 felony possession of a machine gun, Class A misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm, two counts of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana if he were an adult. The juvenile court held an initial hearing for K.M. on August 2, 2024. K.M. admitted to committing the acts of dangerous possession of a firearm, resisting law enforcement, and possession of marijuana, and the State dismissed the possession of a machine gun allegation. At an ensuing dispositional hearing, K.M.’s probation officer expressed concern that K.M. was in trouble again and “ask[ed] that [K.M.] be ordered to the Indiana Department of Correction.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 19. The trial court agreed and ordered that wardship of K.M. be awarded to the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[10] On appeal, K.M. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it awarded wardship over him to the Department of Correction. The “juvenile court is accorded wide latitude and great flexibility in its dealings with juveniles.” M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 458 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. Thus, we will reverse the court's choice of the specific disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent child only for an abuse of discretion. Id. The “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.” Id. The trial court abuses its discretion only when its decision is “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.” Id.

[11] The choice of an appropriate juvenile disposition is governed by Indiana Code Section 31-37-18-6 (2024), which provides as follows:

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.

[12] The statute “states that placement in the least restrictive setting is required only ‘[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.’ ” R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting I.C. § 31-37-18-6). “Thus, the statute recognizes that in certain situations the best interest of the child is better served by a more restrictive placement.” J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 29 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[13] The juvenile court awarded wardship of K.M. to the Department of Correction after concluding that prior efforts to prevent removal from his home environment had been unsuccessful due to K.M.’s repeated commission of new delinquent acts and abuse of “illegal substances.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 12. The court also observed that removing K.M. from his home was in K.M.’s best interests because K.M. needs services beyond those available through probation services, and “[a] highly structured program, such as [with] the Indiana Department of Correction, is necessary to keep [K.M.] and the community safe.” Id. at 12-13.

[14] The juvenile court has twice placed K.M. on formal probation because of his delinquent acts. Despite those previous less restrictive placements, here K.M. once again committed delinquent acts. He resisted and ignored police officers’ requests, possessed a deadly weapon, and possessed marijuana. K.M. has not responded to prior less restrictive alternatives that have been afforded to him, and the juvenile court considered those prior failures when it determined what placement here would be the safest for the community and in K.M.’s best interests.

[15] Still, K.M. argues that the juvenile court's decision was “punitive rather than rehabilitative[,]” which is not the goal of the juvenile justice system. Appellant's Br. at 14 (citing Jordan v. State, 512 N.E.2d 407, 408 (Ind. 1987)). We do not agree. Again, the juvenile court concluded that K.M.’s actions “pose[d a] danger to self and others,” making wardship over K.M. by the Department of Correction appropriate for rehabilitation rather than punishment. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 12. And, again, K.M. has not taken advantage of lesser placements and has continued to engage in delinquent acts. The juvenile court determined that placement in the Department of Correction would best serve K.M.’s best interests, and we will not second guess that decision on appeal. As our Court has previously observed, placement with the Department of Correction is not a penalty; the Department of Correction is a secure environment that can better serve the overall purpose of rehabilitating a juvenile. M.C., 134 N.E.3d at 461.

[16] For all of these reasons, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered K.M. to be a ward of the Department of Correction.

Conclusion

[17] We affirm the juvenile court's order granting wardship of K.M. to the Department of Correction.

[18] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

Judges Foley and Felix concur. Foley, J., and Felix, J., concur.