D.H., Appellant-Defendant v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After D.H. was adjudicated delinquent for Class A misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm, the trial court committed him to the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). D.H. now appeals, claiming the trial court abused its discretion by doing so. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In May 2024, police recovered a loaded, unregistered handgun from then seventeen-year-old D.H.’s waistband. The State alleged D.H. was delinquent for committing Class A misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm. In July, D.H. admitted to the allegation and was adjudicated delinquent.

[3] At the time, D.H. lived with his maternal grandparents and three of his siblings. He had been adjudicated a child in need of services in the past. D.H. has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”) and post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) but no longer takes his prescribed medication. As of May 2024, D.H. worked at a fast-food restaurant and visited his friends and pregnant girlfriend in his free time. When asked, D.H. did not know his girlfriend's last name. On a few occasions, D.H. left home for several days at a time and his grandparents did not know where he went.

[4] D.H. also has a juvenile history, including ten referrals and three prior delinquency adjudications.¹ Over time, D.H. has been offered several services, like programming through United Methodist Youth Home, medication management, and home-based casework. D.H. has also received multiple alternative placements, such as release following a lecture, non-secure detention, probation, electronic house arrest, and secure detention.

[5] At the conclusion of D.H.’s dispositional hearing, the trial court committed him to the DOC, noting “an elevation of seriousness” in D.H.’s juvenile history and the failure of prior less restrictive means to address D.H.’s delinquent behavior. Tr. Vol. 2 at 46.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by committing D.H. to the DOC.

[6] “The goal of the juvenile process is rehabilitation so that the youth will not become a criminal as an adult.” J.S. v. State, 110 N.E.3d 1173, 1175–76 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting R.H. v. State, 937 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)), trans. denied. As a result, “[j]uvenile courts enjoy significant discretion in crafting an appropriate disposition for juveniles found delinquent.” B.K. v. State, 235 N.E.3d 142, 143 (Ind. 2024). We review a chosen disposition for abuse of discretion, which occurs when a trial court misinterprets the law or issues a decision clearly contravening the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. G.W. v. State, 231 N.E.3d 184, 188 (Ind. 2024). In conducting this review, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. A.F. v. State, 247 N.E.3d 841, 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).

[7] Although provided with “wide latitude and great flexibility” when fashioning an appropriate disposition, R.G. v. State, 212 N.E.3d 720, 723 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (citation omitted), a trial court must consider several factors while doing so:

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); see also M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 458 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (describing the trial court's discretion as “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”), trans. denied, cert. denied. Ultimately, commitment to the DOC “should be treated as a last resort.” G.W., 231 N.E.3d at 190 (quoting C.H. v. State, 201 N.E.3d 202, 205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022)).

[8] D.H. contends the trial court abused its discretion by committing him to the DOC because doing so “does not serve the goal of rehabilitation, ․ is not in D.H.’s best interest, and ․ is not the least restrictive alternative.” Appellant's Br. at 8. As the trial court recognized, however, numerous less restrictive efforts have failed to alter D.H.’s behavior. Although D.H. has been offered services and received multiple less restrictive placements, he has consistently squandered these opportunities by committing frequent and increasingly serious delinquent acts. So, in light of D.H.’s substantial juvenile history and unsuccessful less restrictive efforts, the trial court determined placement in the DOC represented the least restrictive means necessary, was in D.H.’s best interest, and reflected the community's safety needs. See J.J. v. State, 925 N.E.2d 796, 802 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (affirming a juvenile's placement in the DOC, in part, because the juvenile “continued to reoffend and disrespect the rule of law and his fellow citizens” despite participating in numerous juvenile programs), trans. denied. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by making this determination. See D.S. v. State, 829 N.E.2d 1081, 1086 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by committing a juvenile to the DOC “[i]n light of [juvenile's] failure to respond to the numerous less restrictive alternatives already afforded to him”).

Conclusion

[9] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by committing D.H. to the DOC.

[10] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   D.H. had two referrals for leaving home without permission of a parent, guardian, or custodian as well as referrals for the following crimes if committed by an adult: Class B misdemeanor battery, Level 6 felony battery on a public safety official, Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury, Class A misdemeanor intimidation, Class B misdemeanor harassment, Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy, Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Level 6 felony battery against a public safety official, and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. D.H. was also adjudicated delinquent for leaving home without permission of a parent, guardian, or custodian and for the following crimes if committed by an adult: Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor attempted disorderly conduct, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur.