Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
T.M., Appellant-Respondent, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case Summary
[1] T.M. appeals the trial court's order committing him to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] T.M. was born in June 2006. In August 2019, he was walking with friends when he threw a brick through a church-bus window. The State filed a delinquency petition alleging that T.M. committed what would be Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief if committed by an adult. See Cause No. 45D06-1908-JD-459. T.M. was released to his mother on home detention but was later placed in secure detention because he was not following the home-detention rules. In October, the trial court found T.M. to be a juvenile delinquent and ordered him to complete thirty hours of community service, serve six months on probation, and be placed at Campagna Academy, a nonsecure facility.
[3] In January 2020, the State filed a petition to modify alleging that T.M. was physically and verbally abusive to staff at Campagna. T.M. admitted the allegations, and the trial court ordered him to remain at Campagna. In May, T.M. was unsuccessfully discharged from Campagna, returned to his mother, and placed on probation.
[4] In August 2020, the State filed a second petition to modify alleging that T.M. was regularly running away from home and not participating in probation, and he was placed in secure detention. The next month, T.M. admitted the allegations, and the trial court placed him at Transitions, a residential facility.
[5] T.M. completed the program at Transitions and was released to his mother in June 2021. Within two days, however, T.M. was running away from home again. The State filed a third petition to modify, and T.M. was again placed in secure detention. In September, T.M. admitted the allegations, and the trial court released him to his mother and placed him on intensive probation.
[6] In December 2021, T.M. threatened to harm a teacher at his school. The police were called, and T.M. was detained. The State filed a second delinquency petition alleging that T.M. committed what would be two counts of Level 6 felony intimidation and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct if committed by an adult. See Cause No. 45D06-2112-JD-515. While in detention, T.M. was involved in several fights. In January 2022, the parties reached an agreement under which T.M. admitted to Class A misdemeanor intimidation (reduced from a Level 6 felony) and the State dismissed the remaining allegations. The trial court found T.M. to be a juvenile delinquent, released him to his mother, and placed him on intensive probation, which included home detention.
[7] About four months later, in May 2022, T.M. and a friend were driving around in a car reported stolen. The police pursued the car, but it did not stop. The car eventually crashed into a police car, and T.M. fled on foot. T.M. was apprehended and detained. The State filed a third delinquency petition alleging that T.M. committed what would be Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass, Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement if committed by an adult. See Cause No. 45D06-2205-JD-279. The State also filed petitions to modify in JD-459 and JD-515.
[8] An initial hearing on the three petitions was held in June. At the hearing, T.M.’s attorney asked the trial court for time to consult T.M. and his mother since the probation department was recommending that T.M. be placed in the DOC. The court scheduled a hearing for later that month. At the beginning of that hearing, the court asked T.M. if he had a chance to consult his attorney and was satisfied with his attorney, and T.M. said yes. T.M.’s attorney then told the court:
I did talk to my client as well as his mother, in addition to the State. We have an admission to Count 3 [(Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement)] on short cause, -279, and we'll do an admission to the Modification, and it's my understanding that all parties are in agreement with the Department of Corrections, your Honor.
Tr. p. 16 (emphasis added). The court asked T.M.’s mother if she had “spoke[n] with the attorney about this resolution,” was “satisfied with the consultation,” and “agree[d]” with the resolution, and T.M.’s mother said yes. Id. at 17. A probation officer testified that the department recommended that T.M. be placed in the DOC because it had tried “everything”—including two residential placements, intensive probation, regular probation, home detention, and community service—but nothing had worked. Id. at 19. The court asked T.M.’s mother for a second time if she agreed that T.M. should be placed in the DOC, and she said yes. See id. at 20-21. The court ordered T.M. placed in the DOC.
[9] T.M. now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[10] T.M. contends the trial court should not have committed him to the DOC. Trial courts have discretion in determining the disposition of a delinquent child, and we review such a decision only for an abuse of that discretion. M.M. v. State, 189 N.E.3d 1163, 1166 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022).
[11] The State argues that T.M. cannot raise this issue on appeal since he agreed to be placed in the DOC. As the State highlights, T.M.’s attorney told the trial court that the parties were “in agreement” that T.M. should be placed in the DOC, and the court twice confirmed this with T.M.’s mother. Notably, T.M. neither acknowledged these facts in his appellant's brief nor filed a reply brief responding to the State's claim that this issue is unavailable to him on appeal. Because T.M. agreed that the court should place him in the DOC, he cannot raise this issue on appeal. See Batchelor v. State, 119 N.E.3d 550, 556 (Ind. 2019) (explaining that “[w]hen the failure to object accompanies the party's affirmative requests of the court, it becomes a question of invited error,” which “forecloses appellate review altogether” (quotation omitted)).
[12] But even if appellate review wasn't foreclosed, we would still affirm the trial court. Indiana law requires that the disposition of a delinquent child be the least restrictive option consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child. D.S. v. State, 829 N.E.2d 1081, 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); Ind. Code § 31-37-18-6. While commitment to the DOC is the most restrictive disposition available, it is also the most appropriate in some cases. See M.C. v. State, 134 N.E.3d 453, 459 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied.
[13] This is one of those cases. Since August 2019, when T.M. was thirteen years old, he has been in and out of secure detention, at two residential placements, and on both regular and intensive probation (including home detention). But these less restrictive options have not helped, as T.M. has continued to engage in delinquent behavior. As T.M. points out, it's true he completed the program at Transitions. However, two days after his release he was running away from home again. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in placing T.M. in the DOC as he agreed to.
[14] Affirmed.
Vaidik, Judge.
Riley, J., and Bailey, J., concur.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Court of Appeals Case No. 22A-JV-1761
Decided: December 28, 2022
Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)