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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] J.D.S. appeals the trial court's award of wardship over him to the Department of Correction (“DOC”) after it found that he was a juvenile delinquent for having committed three acts that would be felonies if committed by an adult. J.D.S. raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the court abused its discretion when it placed him with the DOC. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On March 29, 2025, T.D. reported that her ex-boyfriend, seventeen-year-old J.D.S., had “[k]icked” in the door to her house while she was inside. Ex. at 4. T.D. further reported that J.D.S. had a knife, that he had ordered everyone except for herself and her new partner to exit, and that he had threatened to kill either them or himself.

[3] Officers were alerted to the situation and arrived at T.D.’s home. When they arrived, they attempted to enter but discovered that an object was blocking the door. The officers were able to kick down the door, and they saw J.D.S. with a knife in his hand. J.D.S. told officers: “You can either shoot me or I'll slit my throat.” Id. at 3. Officers deployed a taser and restrained J.D.S.

[4] The State filed a petition and alleged that J.D.S. was a juvenile delinquent for having committed burglary, as a Level 2 felony if committed by an adult; criminal confinement, as a Level 3 felony if committed by an adult; and intimidation, as a Level 5 felony if committed by an adult. At a subsequent hearing, J.D.S. admitted to the allegations. Then, following a dispositional hearing, the court entered an order in which it found that J.D.S. “has a prior history of delinquent adjudications” across eight cause numbers and that “reasonable efforts were made by the probation department to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 62-63 (bold removed). Accordingly, the court placed J.D.S. under the wardship of the DOC for a determinate term of two years. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[5] J.D.S. contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to be committed to the DOC rather than a less restrictive setting. As the Indiana Supreme Court has explained:

The specific disposition of a delinquent is within the juvenile court's discretion, to be guided by the following considerations: the safety of the community, the best interests of the child, the least restrictive alternative, family autonomy and life, freedom of the child, and the freedom and participation of the parent, guardian, or custodian. We reverse only for an abuse of discretion, namely a decision that is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.

K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind. 2006) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

[6] On appeal, J.D.S. contends that the court abused its discretion when it placed him under the wardship of the DOC because he “suffers from several serious mental health disorders[,]” including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and “probable bipolar disorder.” Appellant's Br. at 9. He further maintains that the court abused its discretion when it placed him in the DOC because “the record indicates that [he] has been sexually abused” and because “there is evidence of family dysfunction in this case.” Id. As such, J.D.S. contends that the “DOC commitment in this case is unnecessary and punitive.” Id. at 10.

[7] However, the record demonstrates that J.D.S., at only seventeen years old, has an extensive history of delinquent behaviors. J.D.S. began his acts of delinquency in 2017, when he was only ten years old, and he has been “on and off probation” ever since. Tr. at 14. J.D.S. has accumulated eight prior adjudications as a delinquent, with four of those being for offenses that would be felonies if committed by an adult. And J.D.S. has been placed in five different residential facilities, has been sent to “secure detention” eight times, and has been placed on home detention five times. Id. at 15. Because of his prior acts, “probation has exhausted all resources[.]” Id. But despite those prior efforts by the court and the probation department, J.D.S. has continued to commit violent acts of delinquency. The court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered that J.D.S. be committed to the DOC for two years. We therefore affirm the trial court.

[8] Affirmed.

Bailey, Judge.

Tavitas, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.