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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] J.J. was adjudicated a delinquent child after admitting to possessing marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor if committed by an adult. J.J. now appeals, arguing the trial court erred when it awarded wardship of him to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 10, 2024, J.J. was reported to be a missing juvenile. Officers initiated a traffic stop on a vehicle associated with J.J. and located J.J. in the passenger seat. Inside the vehicle, officers found a bag containing marijuana and an envelope containing J.J.’s identification and $1,700 in counterfeit one-hundred-dollar bills. The officers took J.J. into custody.

[3] The State filed a petition alleging J.J. committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana. On December 27, the juvenile court held a hearing, and J.J. admitted to possessing marijuana. The juvenile court adjudicated him to be a delinquent and ordered him to return to secure detention pending disposition.

[4] The juvenile court held a dispositional hearing on January 23, 2025. Jay County Sheriff's Office Lieutenant Tony Lennartz testified that he conducted a search of J.J.’s phone, pursuant to the terms of probation. Lieutenant Lennartz observed that “basically every other picture or video [depicted] a felony takin’ place[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 20. Multiple photographs and videos showed J.J. possessing handguns, and handling and weighing drugs. Lieutenant Lennartz also observed J.J. waving handguns with extended magazines in a “reckless manner” in the photos. Id. at 21. J.J. later admitted that the photographs and videos depicted him waving guns around and using methamphetamine, marijuana, and hallucinogenic mushrooms.

[5] The juvenile court found in its dispositional order that J.J. had two other adjudications for non-status offenses, had previously violated the law despite less restrictive dispositions of probation and short-term secure detention, was on probation when he committed the instant offense, and was previously committed to the DOC. It also found that “continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare of [J.J.] because there is a complete loss of parental control, and [J.J.] continues to engage in delinquent activity while residing with either parent.” App. Vol. II p. 41. Referencing the contents of J.J.’s cell phone, the juvenile court stated, “I see a stupid little kid who's gonna end up in a box sooner than they need to be.” Tr. Vol. II pp. 28-29 (formatting altered). The juvenile court awarded wardship of J.J. to the DOC. J.J. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] J.J. argues the court abused its discretion in committing him to the DOC. “Juvenile 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 juvenile court's disposition of a delinquent child for an abuse of discretion. G.W. v. State, 231 N.E.3d 184, 188 (Ind. 2024). “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)).

[7] Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6 (1997) provides:

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.

Additionally, “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] J.J. contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by committing him to the DOC because the court had less restrictive options available—specifically, electronically monitored home detention or a period of secure detention—that would be less disruptive to family life, impose less restraint on the freedom of J.J. and his parents, and would have provided the opportunity for participation by his parents. However, the trial court found that J.J. had previously failed in less restrictive placements and continued to engage in delinquent activity while in either parent's care. And although J.J. correctly notes that the State did not charge him based on the contents on his cell phone, he admitted to waving around handguns and using marijuana, methamphetamine, and hallucinogenic mushrooms. That conduct shows that J.J. endangered himself and his community and was appropriate for the trial court to consider in determining the most appropriate setting for J.J. Under these circumstances, awarding wardship of J.J. to the DOC was consistent with the safety of the community and J.J.’s best interest. See M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 459 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (holding that commitment to DOC was necessary to prevent M.C. from harming himself or the community), trans. denied. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in awarding wardship of J.J. to the DOC.¹

[9] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   J.J. also raises the issue of “[w]hether the dispositional order should be corrected in other aspects[,]” but provides no argument on this issue. Appellant's Br. p. 4. This issue is waived. See Davis v. State, 835 N.E.2d 1102, 1113 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (“A party waives an issue where the party fails to develop a cogent argument or provide adequate citation to authority and portions of the record.”), trans. denied; see also Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8) (requiring appellant's arguments to be supported by cogent reasoning and citations to authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal).

Scheele, Judge.

Foley, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.