Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered a juvenile who violated the terms of his probation to be placed in the Indiana Department of Correction, the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed Wednesday.
According to court records, in the summer of 2022, the state filed three separate delinquency petitions against R.G, a juvenile.
In the petitions, the state alleged R.G. was a delinquent child for committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would be Level 5 felony robbery, Level 6 felony theft of a firearm, three counts of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Level 6 felony battery of a public service official, Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct and Class C misdemeanor refusal to give identifying information.
In July 2022, the parties reached an agreement for R.G. to admit he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would be Level 6 felony theft of a firearm and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. In exchange, the state would dismiss all other charges from the three petitions.
The Lake Superior Court subsequently adjudicated R.G. a delinquent and placed him in intensive probation with an electronic home monitor on Aug. 11, 2022.
But on Aug. 14 and 22, R.G. posted pictures on Instagram of himself holding handguns, which was in direct violation of the terms of his probation.
The court issued an arrest warrant on Aug. 23.
The trial court rejected the probation department’s recommendation that R.G. be placed in a residential facility. Instead, the court awarded wardship of R.G. to DOC and recommended programming.
R.G. appealed, arguing the juvenile court abused its discretion when it awarded guardianship of him to the DOC.
Specifically, he argued the court did not follow the recommendations of the probation department and the state to put him in a residential placement that would be less restrictive than the DOC.
But the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion.
Judge Melissa May wrote the opinion for the court.
According to May, R.G. was denied placement in all but one residential facility, and that placement was not going to have an opening for at least six to eight weeks.
Thus, the appellate court could not say the trial court abused its discretion in ordering R.G. to be placed in the DOC, where he could immediately begin programs that the trial court believed would benefit R.G., she said.
R.G. cited C.H. v. State, 201 N.E.3d 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), and argued the same result should be reached in his case. In C.H., the appellate court held a juvenile’s commitment to DOC was not appropriate.
In that case, C.H. was adjudicated a delinquent child for acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute Level 6 felony theft of a firearm, Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license, Class C misdemeanor operating without a license and a Class C infraction for speeding.
But in comparing the two cases, May said R.G. failed to recognize that C.H.’s behavior at the Vigo County Detention Center “was exemplary” while the case was pending.
“R.G., on the other hand, violated probation by posting pictures on Instagram of himself with firearms and by being ‘in a few physical altercations while in detention,’” she wrote.
May added that C.H.’s Indiana Youth Assessment System score showed a “low risk of reoffending,” while R.G.’s IYAS score revealed a high risk of reoffending, and the probation department believed R.G. was a “danger to the community.”
Also, a pre-dispositional report found that “[R.G.] was previously ordered home based services, and through his actions have [sic] shown that he is not amenable to service provided in a home environment and would benefit from the secure setting at the Department of Corrections [sic].”
“For all these reasons, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it placed R.G. in the DOC,” May wrote.
Chief Judge Robert Altice and Judge Peter Foley concurred.
The case is In the Matter of R.G. (Minor Child) v. The State of Indiana, 23A-JV-00011.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.