M.H. v. State

• Decision Date: 01 December 2022
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 22A-JV-1170
• Citation: 199 N.E.3d 1240
• Parties: M.H., Appellant-Respondent, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

199 N.E.3d 1240

M.H., Appellant-Respondent,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner

Court of Appeals Case No. 22A-JV-1170

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Filed December 1, 2022

Attorney for Appellant: Nancy A. McCaslin, McCaslin & McCaslin, Elkhart, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Indianapolis, Indiana, Robert M. Yoke, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

May, Judge.

[1] M.H. appeals his placement in the Department of Correction ("DOC") following his violation of the probation he was serving for his delinquency adjudication. M.H. raises two issues on appeal, which we reorder and restate as:

1. Whether the trial court violated M.H.’s right to due process by holding virtual hearings without complying with Administrative Rule 14, which governs the use of telephone and audiovisual telecommunication by trial courts; and

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting wardship of M.H. to the DOC.

Because both of M.H.’s arguments fail, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] When M.H. appealed his adjudication as a delinquent, we reported the underlying facts:

On July 20, 2020, T.J. was at his house with A.L. and B.D. At one point, there was a "ruckus" outside, and T.J. encountered a "bunch of people" who were yelling at him. The people "surrounded" T.J., and one girl got "physical" with him. T.J. pushed the girl off of him, and the girl went to get M.H. M.H. arrived at T.J.’s house and "pointed a gun" at T.J.’s head. M.H. then "smacked" T.J. with his hand and "smacked [T.J.] with the gun." M.H. told T.J. that T.J. "would be killed" if he "ever c[a]me around" M.H. or the girl. M.H. then left, and T.J.’s mother called the police.

M.H. v. State , No. 21A-JV-2122, slip op. at *1, 2022 WL 869654 (Ind. Ct. App. March 24, 2022) (record citations omitted).

[3] On March 23, 2021, the State filed a petition alleging M.H. was a delinquent child for committing acts that, if committed by an adult, would be the following crimes: Level 5 felony intimidation,¹ Level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly weapon,² and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license.³ M.H. denied the allegations, so the trial court held a fact-finding hearing, after which the trial court found the allegations true and adjudicated M.H. a delinquent child on July 23, 2021. After a dispositional hearing on August 4, 2021, the trial court rejected the probation department's recommendation to place M.H. in the DOC. Instead, the trial court placed M.H. on probation and ordered probation to investigate "alternate rehabilitation services." (App. Vol. 2 at 81.) The trial court also set a further dispositional hearing for September 8, 2021.

[4] On September 7, 2021, the probation department filed a modification report with the trial court because M.H. tested positive for marijuana on one occasion and submitted a diluted test sample on another occasion. The trial court held a further dispositional hearing on September 13, 2021, at which the trial court heard evidence of additional possible services and placements available for M.H. The trial court continued M.H. on probation and ordered M.H. to complete a substance abuse evaluation and follow any recommendations; participate in the Youth Advocate Program and Fatherhood Engagement; and complete an interview within fifteen days with Rite of Passage for possible placement in that program. On September 29, 2021, the trial court entered a six-month review hearing order that continued all services and M.H.’s placement at home with his mother.

[5] On March 28, 2022, the probation department filed a petition for the trial court to modify M.H.’s disposition based on an allegation that M.H. committed dangerous possession of a firearm, which would be a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. (Id. at 136.) On March 31, 2022, M.H. appeared via Webex from the Juvenile Detention Center ("JDC") for an initial hearing on the new allegation of delinquency and the petition to modify probation based on that alleged violation. M.H. denied the new allegation of delinquency and denied violating probation, so the trial court set the matters for a fact-finding hearing on April 21, 2022.

[6] On April 21, 2022, M.H. appeared via Webex from the JDC and was in shackles due to his behavior at the JDC. The State moved to dismiss the new delinquency allegation without prejudice. After the new petition was dismissed, M.H. admitted he violated his probation by possessing a firearm. The trial court accepted M.H.’s admission of probation violation and asked if the parties were ready to proceed to disposition. Probation requested the trial court delay the dispositional hearing so probation could investigate what M.H. had done at the JDC to result in his being shackled for the hearing. The trial court set the dispositional hearing for eight days later.

[7] On April 28, 2022, probation filed an updated recommendation as to M.H.’s disposition. (Id. at 156-8.) On April 29, 2022, the court heard testimony from probation and M.H. After the hearing, the trial court entered an order that contained the following, in pertinent part:

After weighing all of the evidence presented and judging the credibility of the witnesses, the Court makes the following findings of fact:

1. On April 21, 2022, the Child admitted to violating the terms and conditions of his probation by admitting that he possessed a loaded handgun with an extended magazine while on probation supervision.

2. This was not the first time the Child has violated the terms and conditions of probation, as the Child has a history of violations and a history of delinquent acts that involve firearms.

3. The facts and circumstances that led to the Child's adjudication are particularly concerning; the Child pointed a gun at another child's head and threatened to kill him.

4. The Child continued to use marijuana while on probation supervision, and had six (6) positive and/or diluted screens while on probation supervision.

5. The Child was not regularly attending school prior to his detention at the Juvenile Detention Center (JDC).

6. The Child has been offered multiple services and alternatives to support a rehabilitation plan and keep the Child in the community, but those services have been unsuccessful.

7. The Child displayed aggressive behavior with other children and staff while in the JDC.

8. The Child's Indiana Youth Assessment System tool places the Child in a high risk category to reoffend.

9. The Child's probation officer testified that the Child is a danger to the community due to his continued possession of firearms and failing to take advantage of community based services that have been offered.

10. If placed at the Indiana Department of Corrections [sic], the Child can participate in the "Why Try" program, can continue with his education, and can participate in other rehabilitative services while remaining in a secure locked facility.

11. Notwithstanding the aggressive behavior displayed while at the JDC, the Child has done well educationally while in the secure locked facility, as there has been more individualized assistance.

12. The Child expressed his willingness to accept help from others and has been working to address some of his issues while at the JDC.

The Court finds that the Child previously admitted to the following offenses:

I.C. 35-45-2-1(a)(4)	Intimidation, Level 5 felony
I.C. 35-42-2-1(c)(1)	Battery by means of deadly weapon, Level 5 felony
I.C. 35-47-2-1	Carrying a handgun without a license, A misdemeanor

The child has a prior history of delinquent adjudications as follows:

I.C. 35-47-10-5(1)	Dangerous possession of a firearm, A misdemeanor
I.C. 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1)	Resisting law enforcement, A misdemeanor
I.C. 8-3-15-3(a)	Unauth use of railroad right of way, B misdemeanor
I.C. 35-43-4-2(a)	Auto theft, Level 6 felony

The following services have been provided:

1. Probation Supervision

2. Victim Offender Reconciliation Program (VORP).

3. Electronic Monitor.

4. Substance Abuse Assessment.

5. Case Management.

6. Community Service Restitution.

7. Positive Activity.

8. Safety Plan.

9. Individual Therapy.

10. No Contact as term of Probation.

11. Community Connections Program.

12. Services for Mother, including Positive Parenting Program.

13. Drug Screens.

14. Fatherhood engagement.

15. Lunch with a Cop.

The Court finds that it is in the Child's best interest to continue to be removed from the home because his behaviors are contrary to his interests and those of the community by placing himself and others at serious risk of harm. Rehabilitative efforts have been unsuccessful due to the Child's prior unwillingness to engage in services, and he continues to engage in delinquent behavior.

Community resources have been exhausted and testimony was provided that the Child can receive the help he needs at IDOC.

* * * * *

Pursuant to I.C. 31-37-19-6, the Court now awards wardship of the Child to the Indiana Department of Corrections [sic] for housing in any correctional facility for children.

The Court's Dispositional Order is entered for the following reasons:

1. Community resources have been exhausted.

2. The Child's behavior is dangerous to himself and the community and therefore requires the most restrictive placement available to the Court.

3. Placement is in the Child's best interest because it will give Child the opportunity for more intensive rehabilitation in a secure setting.

(Id. at 159-61.) The trial court granted wardship of M.H. to the DOC.

Discussion and Decision

[8] The juvenile court system is founded on the notion of parens patriae , which allows the court to step into the shoes of the parents. In re K.G. , 808 N.E.2d 631, 635 (Ind. 2004). The parens patriae doctrine gives juvenile courts power to further the best interests of the child, "which implies a broad discretion unknown in the adult criminal court system." Id.

1. Due Process

[9] M.H. asserts the trial court denied him due process by holding hearings virtually without complying with ...