N.J., Appellant-Respondent v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After adjudicating N.J. delinquent for Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine if committed by an adult, the trial court committed him to the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). N.J. appeals, contending the trial court abused its discretion by doing so.¹ We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 22, 2024, police were dispatched to then sixteen-year-old N.J.’s home where he lived with his adoptive mother. N.J.’s mother had called police about a domestic dispute. When officers entered the home, they observed N.J. “slumped over to the side” in a recliner. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 15. After an officer yelled his name, N.J. awoke and appeared to be “extremely under the influence of an illegal substance.” Id. The officer noticed a cut straw with a “crystal-like substance” inside it on the floor near the recliner. Id. The substance field-tested positive for methamphetamine. N.J. was then detained, and during a pat down search, a plastic bag that contained a crystal-like substance was found in the pocket of N.J.’s hoodie. This substance also field-tested positive for methamphetamine. N.J.’s mother gave consent to the police to search N.J.’s locked room where officers found several different sizes of plastic bags, many with crystal-like residue in them. They also found glass smoking devices and empty alcohol bottles around the room, as well as alcohol and scales in a safe. N.J. refused to cooperate with officers as they tried to place him in a patrol car during the search.

[3] Law enforcement initially sought to detain N.J. and contacted the juvenile probation department to help with placement. But because no secure detention beds were available that day, N.J. was released into his mother's care. On July 1, after completing a preliminary inquiry report, juvenile probation moved the trial court to place N.J. in secure detention. On the trial court's order, N.J. was taken into custody, where he remained throughout the proceedings.

[4] The State the filed a delinquency petition, alleging N.J. was delinquent for committing acts constituting the following crimes if committed by an adult: Level 5 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The State also alleged N.J. committed Class C misdemeanor minor in possession of alcohol.

[5] At the scheduled fact-finding hearing in September, N.J. admitted to possessing methamphetamine as alleged in the delinquency petition. The trial court adjudicated N.J. a delinquent for this act and dismissed the remaining allegations on the State's motion.

[6] The trial court ordered a predispositional report, which summarized N.J.’s history of delinquent behavior. In 2019, when he was eleven years old, N.J. admitted to habitual disobedience of a parent, guardian, or custodian related to allegations of stealing, truancy, and marijuana use. For that, he received an informal adjustment. After violating the terms of his informal adjustment, he was adjudicated delinquent for criminal trespass and conversion and placed in residential treatment. While there, N.J. battered a staff member and damaged property, and as a result, was adjudicated delinquent for battery resulting in bodily injury and criminal mischief. See id. at 101. In addition to residential treatment, N.J. has previously been placed in secure detention and the DOC. During his previous DOC commitment, N.J. was part of a security threat group known as the “Bloods.” Id. at 103. He also violated his parole and was placed in a DOC treatment program. Past services for N.J. included probation supervision, home-based therapy, and case management and casework services. N.J. also has a history of substance use and has received mental health treatment.

[7] At the dispositional hearing, the probation department recommended N.J. be committed to the DOC for placement in an appropriate juvenile facility because of his history of failed attempts at residential treatment and reunification with his mother. The State agreed with this recommendation. N.J. requested home detention. N.J. asked the trial court to consider the fact he had been in detention for 100 days, has his “head on straight now,” is “thinking clear,” and knows he “could be good.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 23. He asked for “one more chance” and told the trial court, “Let me prove to you that I can do it.” Id.

[8] The trial court committed N.J. to the DOC, noting that N.J. had “not made progress” and seemed to “go backwards ․ more times than not.” Id. at 24. The trial court advised N.J., “[I]f you're serious about making changes, this is the time to do it.” Id. The trial court's amended dispositional order explained it chose to place N.J. at the DOC because

[N.J.] has had multiple Juvenile Delinquency cases, which include a prior commitment to the [DOC] and a subsequent parole violation, and [N.J.] continues to make dangerous choices and decisions, including the usage of methamphetamine and alcohol.

Amended Dispositional Order at 2.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by committing N.J. to the DOC.

[9] “[T]he 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 trial court's chosen disposition for abuse of discretion, which occurs when a trial court misinterprets the law or issues a decision contravening the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. G.W., 231 N.E.3d at 188. 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).

[10] 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.

I.C. § 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)).

[11] N.J. claims the trial court abused its discretion by committing him to the DOC because he should be placed in “the least restrictive (most family like) and most appropriate setting available; one that imposes the least restraint on [N.J.’s] freedom; and one that addresses [N.J.’s] unique needs.” Appellant's Br. at 12. Even if a less restrictive setting was available, Indiana Code Section 31-37-18-6 requires placement in the least restrictive setting only “[i]f consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child[.]”

[12] Although N.J. has been offered services and received multiple less restrictive placements, he has consistently squandered these opportunities by committing increasingly serious delinquent acts. Said another way, the trial court recognized less restrictive rehabilitative efforts failed to alter N.J.’s behavior. As the trial court observed, “[N.J.] continues to make dangerous choices and decisions, including the usage of methamphetamine and alcohol,” which led the trial court to conclude commitment to the DOC was in N.J.’s best interest. Amended Dispositional Order at 2. In the end, the trial court adhered to the statutory scheme and determined N.J.’s escalating delinquent behavior posed a threat to himself and his community, such that a less restrictive placement was not in his best interest.

Conclusion

[13] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by committing N.J. to the DOC.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   N.J. raised two issues on appeal. The first issue claimed the trial court's dispositional order was missing information required by statute. See Ind. Code § 31-37-18-9(a). Before filing its brief, the State acknowledged the omission and moved this Court to pause appellate briefing and remand so the trial court could amend the order. This court granted the State's motion, stayed the briefing schedule, and remanded to the trial court. See G.W. v. State, 231 N.E.3d 184, 190–91 (Ind. 2024) (the proper remedy when a trial court fails to enter the required findings in its dispositional order is to hold the appeal in abeyance, remand the case, and instruct the trial court to correct the order). The trial court entered an amended dispositional order, after which the State filed its appellee's brief. Because this issue was resolved by the amended order and N.J. did not ask to amend his appellant's brief and did not file a reply, we address only N.J.’s argument about his commitment to the DOC.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.