T.L., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Following three juvenile adjudications, T.L., a minor, was placed at Depaul Academy where he was to complete a residential treatment program. While at Depaul Academy, T.L. escaped and was arrested a month later. Following a modification hearing, the juvenile court ordered T.L. to be placed with the Indiana Department of Correction (the “DOC”). T.L. now appeals, presenting a single issue for our review: Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering DOC placement.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On July 22, 2023, T.L. fired multiple shots at a house in South Bend, Indiana, hitting the home and causing property damage. Four days later and also in South Bend, T.L. broke into someone else's home and stole items therein. On August 31, the State filed two delinquency petitions for these incidents. In relation to these two incidents, on January 24, 2024, T.L. admitted to criminal recklessness a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult, dangerous possession of a firearm as a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult, and criminal mischief as a Class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult.

[4] Prior to the disposition hearing in those causes, on January 25, T.L. admitted to an allegation of dangerous possession of a firearm as a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult in Hamilton County.¹ The Hamilton County cause was transferred to St. Joseph County—T.L.’s county of residence—and the juvenile court set a dispositional hearing for all three admissions. Following a disposition hearing, the juvenile court placed T.L. at Depaul Academy where he was ordered to participate in a residential treatment program.

[5] On September 7, T.L. was at the St. Joseph County Library while on an approved outing with Depaul Academy staff. T.L. left the group to use the restroom; however, he never returned. Security camera footage revealed that T.L. had exited the library and got into a vehicle waiting in the parking lot. Two days later, the probation department filed a report seeking to modify T.L.’s placement but noted that T.L.’s “whereabouts remain[ed] unknown at the time.” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 79. On October 18, officers from the South Bend Police Department found T.L. in a garage alongside “several other individuals, three firearms, and 340 grams of marijuana.” Id. at 84. T.L. was detained that day, tested positive for marijuana, and was placed at the Juvenile Justice Center.

[6] On October 29, a disposition modification hearing was held. There, a probation officer testified that T.L. had failed to complete the program at Depaul Academy and noted that his recent conduct showed that he had “failed to use any skills learned in the time while [at] DePaul.” Tr. Vol. II at 11. The officer recommended DOC placement for T.L. On November 5, the juvenile court issued a modification order awarding wardship of T.L. to the DOC. T.L. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Ordering Wardship to the DOC

[7] T.L argues that the juvenile court erred by ordering him to be placed with the DOC. “Juvenile courts enjoy wide latitude and significant flexibility in their dealings with juveniles.” B.K. v. State, 235 N.E.3d 142, 145 (Ind. 2024) (citing In re M.T., 928 N.E.2d 266, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)). We review the juvenile court's disposition for abuse of discretion. G.W. v. State, 231 N.E.3d 184, 188 (Ind. 2024) (citing K.S. v. State, 114 N.E.3d 849, 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018)). “A court abuses its discretion by misinterpreting the law or ‘if its decision clearly contravenes the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it.’ ” Id. (quoting T.D. v. State, 219 N.E.3d 719, 724 (Ind. 2023)). “In determining whether a juvenile court has abused its discretion, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility.” A.F. v. State, 247 N.E.3d 841, 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (citing Q.H. v. State, 216 N.E.3d 1197, 1200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023)), trans. not sought.

[8] “The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent is a matter committed to the juvenile court's discretion, subject to the statutory considerations of the child's welfare, community safety, and the policy favoring the least harsh disposition.” A.F., 247 N.E.3d at 843 (citing Q.H., 216 N.E.3d at 1200). When considering an appropriate disposition, if it can be consistent with safety of the community and the best interest of the child, juvenile courts must consider (1) the least restrictive setting that is close the parents’ home, (2) attempting to minimally interfere with family autonomy, (3) attempting to not disrupt family life, (4) imposing the least restraint on the child, and (5) providing reasonable opportunities for participation of the child's family. Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. T.L argues that the State abused its discretion by ordering DOC placement and claims a less restrictive setting would have been more appropriate. We cannot agree.

[9] Initially, we note that “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)), but “that option may be appropriate when ‘consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child,’ ” id. (quoting I.C. § 31-37-18-6). Additionally, “[i]nstead of a punishment, the recommended wardship to the DOC ensures that the juvenile ‘receives, in a secure environment, the extended rehabilitative counseling’ needed.” M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 461 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting S.C. v. State, 779 N.E.2d 937, 940 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied), trans. denied, 143 N.E.3d (Ind. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 632 (2020).

[10] T.L. exhibited a consistent pattern of criminal conduct and an inability to respond to less restrictive placements. In a period of less than two years, T.L. had three juvenile adjudications, including two incidents involving a firearm. He fled from the lesser supervision of the DePaul Academy. And, when he was finally found, three months later, he was near more firearms and a large quantity of drugs. Initially, T.L. claims that the trial court abused its discretion because the highest level of offense he committed would be a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult. This argument is unavailing because, even after being in a residential treatment facility, T.L. escaped to go back to an environment that included drugs and firearms. Next, T.L. asks us to look at evidence from his disposition hearing, including his Indiana Youth Assessment System score, which indicated he was a moderate risk to reoffend, and a probation officer's statement that he had made “good progress.” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 81. These are merely requests for us to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do, see A.F., 247 N.E.3d at 843 (citing Q.H., 216 N.E.3d at 1200). We conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by ordering wardship to the DOC and therefore affirm the trial court's placement decision.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We are unaware of the facts underlying this admission. T.L. provides only the January 25 order and transfer documents related to this cause, and none of these documents describe the offense or when it occurred.

Felix, Judge.

Judges Mathias and Foley concur. Mathias, J., and Foley, J., concur.