J.J., Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] J.J. admitted being a delinquent child for his role in killing an elderly woman, and the juvenile court committed him to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). Three years later, J.J. was released from the DOC and placed on probation. Shortly thereafter, J.J. violated his probation, and the court recommitted him to the DOC. J.J. now appeals, arguing that the court erred in recommitting him to the DOC. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In February 2022, the State filed a delinquency petition alleging that 13-year-old J.J. committed acts that would be murder and Level 1 felony burglary if committed by an adult for his role in killing an elderly woman and then taking property from her home. The State moved to have J.J. waived to adult court.

[3] In October 2022, J.J. and the State entered into an admission agreement, under which J.J. agreed to admit to the murder count, and the State agreed to withdraw its waiver motion and dismiss the burglary count. The juvenile court accepted the agreement. Following a dispositional hearing, the court awarded guardianship of J.J. to the DOC until the age of 21, unless the DOC released him sooner.

[4] J.J.’s behavior in the DOC was largely noncompliant; he received approximately 80 conduct reports. Nonetheless, on November 3, 2025, J.J.—then 17—was released from the DOC to the custody of his aunt, with whom his cousin also lived. The juvenile court placed him on formal probation with Transition from Restrictive Placement services and GPS monitoring. One probation condition was that J.J. was “not to be around firearms or firearm accessories.” Tr. p. 72.

[5] Four days later, on November 7, police were dispatched to the aunt's home because J.J.’s cousin fought with his girlfriend, pointed a gun at her, and then fired it into the ceiling. J.J. was present. A month later, on December 9, probation and police conducted a compliance check at the home. In the bedroom where J.J. had been sleeping, officers found a Glock handgun magazine; in the aunt's bedroom, they found four handguns in a locked safe—two reported stolen years earlier—and an empty Glock carrying case. Officers also observed a screensaver on J.J.’s phone that depicted multiple guns. The probation department petitioned to modify the dispositional decree, alleging that J.J. violated the conditions of his probation. J.J. was initially detained at Marion County Youth Services Center but later released back to his aunt.

[6] The juvenile court held a probation-violation hearing on February 2 and found that J.J. violated the conditions of his probation “by knowingly being around and having access to multiple firearms in the home.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 232; see also Tr. p. 81. The court noted that it was “unfortunate” that J.J. had been placed in a home where guns are the “norm.” Tr. p. 83. But it didn't believe that J.J. didn't know about the guns. See id. at 78 (“I don't find it credible that you didn't know [your cousin] carries a gun. Absolutely not.”), 79 (“All three of you know what's going on with weapons in that house.”). The court told J.J. that at the very least, he should have said something to his probation officer after the November 7 incident, emphasizing that J.J. was 17—“not 6” or “12”—and that it was his freedom at stake. Id. at 80. The court said it was not sending J.J. back to his aunt's home given the gun issues there and that it wished there was another place for him to go. See id. at 82-83. J.J. suggested his grandmother. The court ordered that J.J. be detained again at Youth Services Center while probation tried to work things out with his grandmother. The court warned J.J.:

And if your grandmother says that you can stay there, I will give you a shot. But I'm going to tell you right now, it's going to be such a tight rope. A tight, tight, tight, tight, tight rope. Do you hear what I'm saying?

Id. at 93-94. The court set a detention-review hearing for February 12 and said that if J.J.’s “grandmother's here and ․ everything works out,” it would “put [him] back on GPS” in her home. Id. at 94.

[7] At the detention-review hearing, the juvenile court noted that J.J. had received conduct reports at Youth Services Center on February 3 and 6 for abusive/inappropriate language and threatening physical safety. The court told J.J. that it had planned on releasing him to his grandmother, but that it wasn't doing so given that he received these reports “within a week” of being placed there. Id. at 98. At the end of the hearing, J.J.’s probation officer told the court that he had just received a new report about an incident that had occurred the night before, February 11. That is, J.J. “was on the phone and made threats to whoever he was on the phone with,” stating, “I would kill you and your baby.” Id. at 102. The court set the dispositional hearing for March 6.

[8] At the dispositional hearing, J.J. asked to be released to his grandmother on GPS monitoring. J.J.’s probation officer reported that J.J. had received another conduct report on March 5 for passing a note between two other residents; the State informed the court that those two residents were co-respondents in an unrelated murder case. The State asked the juvenile court to recommit J.J. to the DOC. The court awarded guardianship of J.J. to the DOC until the age of 21, unless the DOC released him sooner. See Appellant's App. Vol. 3 pp. 10-11. The court highlighted J.J.’s “numerous write-ups and behavior during his short time” at Youth Services Center. Id. at 9. The court explained, “I think when you are given an opportunity to reintegrate into the community after being found true of murdering someone, you have very little room for error because the stakes are so high[.]” Tr. p. 115. The court added that it could not “turn a deaf ear or a blind eye” to J.J.’s conduct since his release from the DOC. Id.

[9] J.J. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[10] J.J. does not dispute that he violated his probation. His sole argument is that the juvenile court erred in recommitting him to the DOC. The disposition of a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent child is within the juvenile court's discretion and is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. J.S. v. State, 881 N.E.2d 26, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). The court's discretion is subject to Indiana Code section 31-37-18-6:

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.

The statute favors the least harsh placement only if “consistent with the safety of the community and the best interest of the child.” J.S., 881 N.E.2d at 29. The statute recognizes that a more restrictive placement is sometimes in the best interest of the child. Id.

[11] J.J. acknowledges that “[i]f he had not been adjudicated for Murder, perhaps his room for error would have been bigger.” Appellant's Br. p. 17. He also acknowledges that it is not “smart” for a juvenile probationer to be around guns. Id. J.J. nonetheless contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in recommitting him to the DOC because he has had a “traumatic, chaotic life,” he didn't personally possess any guns during the incidents underlying his violation, and “less restrictive” options were available. Id. at 14. But the fact that J.J. didn't personally possess a gun does not undermine the court's finding that he violated his probation by knowingly being around and having access to multiple guns in the home—the precise risk his probation condition was designed to prevent. Contrary to J.J.’s suggestion that the court failed to consider a less restrictive alternative, the record shows that the court expressly considered releasing him to his grandmother at the detention-review hearing but rejected that option due to his subsequent conduct reports. And after that hearing, J.J. received another conduct report. Given this pattern, combined with the seriousness of the underlying murder adjudication and J.J.’s extensive history of noncompliance during his prior DOC commitment, the juvenile court reasonably concluded that recommitment—rather than a less restrictive placement—was consistent with the safety of the community and J.J.’s best interest. The court did not abuse its discretion.

[12] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and May, J., concur.