Aaron had an extremely abusive and traumatic childhood. In 2010 the San Francisco County District Attorney filed an original juvenile wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that Aaron, age 12, had committed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. Aaron was placed on home supervision; the petition was ultimately dismissed. Five additional wardship petitions were filed during the next 26 months. In 2015, the juvenile court declared wardship and ordered out-of-home placement with conditions of probation. Due to the juvenile court’s decision to treat him as a ward under section 241.1, Aaron’s dependency jurisdiction was terminated one month shy of his eighteenth birthday. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting Aaron’s arguments that that the county protocol under which his juvenile court status was assessed violates state law; that the juvenile court’s status determination was prejudicially flawed; that the juvenile court’s refusal to modify its dispositional order to reinstate dependency was error; and that the juvenile court’s underlying jurisdictional finding that he committed second-degree robbery was not supported by substantial evidence.The juvenile court considered all the evidence and determined that wardship was appropriate because it believed that Aaron would benefit from a “different approach.” The juvenile court’s decision as to whether an earlier juvenile court order should be modified rests within the court’s discretion. View "In re Aaron J." on Justia Law

Defendant Jasen Suhr was charged with sexual assault, in violation of 13 V.S.A. 3252(a)(1), based on allegations that he forced his girlfriend to have sexual intercourse with him without her consent. At that time, defendant was seventeen, and his girlfriend was sixteen. The criminal court transferred defendant to juvenile court in September 2013, but it reversed that decision the next month, returning defendant to criminal court. In December 2013, defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, which was contingent on the family division’s accepting defendant for participation in the youthful-offender treatment program, pursuant to 33 V.S.A. 5281. In February 2014, the family division accepted defendant as a youthful offender and entered the terms of his juvenile probation. The court set a two-year juvenile probationary period, anticipating completion in February 2016. Defendant appealed the trial court’s decision that he violated the terms of his juvenile probation by: failing to attend school, comply with his GPS-monitoring requirements, and participate in a Restorative Justice Panel. Defendant also appealed the trial court’s decision to revoke his youthful-offender status based on these violations. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court determined the trial court’s decision did “not align with the circumstances of this case. … Given that defendant’s underlying conviction was for a sex offense, it was particularly important that treatment include appropriate sex-offender therapy. Based on the court’s findings, defendant was never offered adequate sex offender treatment. His failure to rehabilitate while participating in inappropriate therapy hardly demonstrates that defendant was unamenable to treatment. We find too speculative the court’s prediction that defendant would have violated his probation conditions even if he had received appropriate sex offender therapy. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court exceeded its discretion in revoking defendant’s youth-offender status based, in part, on defendant’s inadequate sex-offender therapy. In determining whether defendant is amenable to rehabilitation on remand, the court should give proper consideration to the adequacy of defendant’s treatment.” The Court affirmed the trial court’s conclusions with respect to defendant’s probation violations for failing to attend school or to comply with GPS monitoring, and for failing to participate in the Restorative Justice Panel, but reversed the trial court’s decision to revoke defendant’s Youthful Offender status. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Vermont v. Suhr" on Justia Law

Defendant Jasen Suhr was charged with sexual assault, in violation of 13 V.S.A. 3252(a)(1), based on allegations that he forced his girlfriend to have sexual intercourse with him without her consent. At that time, defendant was seventeen, and his girlfriend was sixteen. The criminal court transferred defendant to juvenile court in September 2013, but it reversed that decision the next month, returning defendant to criminal court. In December 2013, defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, which was contingent on the family division’s accepting defendant for participation in the youthful-offender treatment program, pursuant to 33 V.S.A. 5281. In February 2014, the family division accepted defendant as a youthful offender and entered the terms of his juvenile probation. The court set a two-year juvenile probationary period, anticipating completion in February 2016. Defendant appealed the trial court’s decision that he violated the terms of his juvenile probation by: failing to attend school, comply with his GPS-monitoring requirements, and participate in a Restorative Justice Panel. Defendant also appealed the trial court’s decision to revoke his youthful-offender status based on these violations. After review, the Vermont Supreme Court determined the trial court’s decision did “not align with the circumstances of this case. … Given that defendant’s underlying conviction was for a sex offense, it was particularly important that treatment include appropriate sex-offender therapy. Based on the court’s findings, defendant was never offered adequate sex offender treatment. His failure to rehabilitate while participating in inappropriate therapy hardly demonstrates that defendant was unamenable to treatment. We find too speculative the court’s prediction that defendant would have violated his probation conditions even if he had received appropriate sex offender therapy. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court exceeded its discretion in revoking defendant’s youth-offender status based, in part, on defendant’s inadequate sex-offender therapy. In determining whether defendant is amenable to rehabilitation on remand, the court should give proper consideration to the adequacy of defendant’s treatment.” The Court affirmed the trial court’s conclusions with respect to defendant’s probation violations for failing to attend school or to comply with GPS monitoring, and for failing to participate in the Restorative Justice Panel, but reversed the trial court’s decision to revoke defendant’s Youthful Offender status. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Vermont v. Suhr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order transferring defendant for criminal prosecution as an adult under 18 U.S.C. 5032. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by deciding to transfer where the district court made specific findings with respect to each statutory factor. In this case, the juvenile's age, nature of the offenses, his role in the offenses, and his intellect and maturity weighed in favor of transfer. The court also held that it was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing where the district court accepted the magistrate judge's credibility findings and independently weighed the statutory factors. View "United States v. Juvenile Male" on Justia Law

The Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602(a) petition, alleging that the minor committed felony first-degree burglary of an occupied residence, felony attempted theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle, and possession of burglar’s tools. The juvenile court continued the minor as a ward of the court and placed him on probation. On reconsideration after remand from the California Supreme Court, the court of appeal reversed. The court rejected an argument that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the minor attempted to drive or take a vehicle without the owner’s consent (Veh. Code 10851(a)). The court remanded for a determination of whether that offense must be reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Cal. Const., art. II, section 10(a)) The California Supreme Court had concluded that Proposition 47 did apply to Vehicle Code section 10851. View "In re J.R." on Justia Law

The Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602(a) petition, alleging that the minor committed felony first-degree burglary of an occupied residence, felony attempted theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle, and possession of burglar’s tools. The juvenile court continued the minor as a ward of the court and placed him on probation. On reconsideration after remand from the California Supreme Court, the court of appeal reversed. The court rejected an argument that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the allegation that the minor attempted to drive or take a vehicle without the owner’s consent (Veh. Code 10851(a)). The court remanded for a determination of whether that offense must be reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Cal. Const., art. II, section 10(a)) The California Supreme Court had concluded that Proposition 47 did apply to Vehicle Code section 10851. View "In re J.R." on Justia Law

In New Jersey, juveniles adjudicated delinquent of certain sex offenses were barred for life from seeking relief from the registration and community notification provisions of Megan’s Law. That categorical lifetime bar cannot be lifted, even when the juvenile becomes an adult and poses no public safety risk, is fully rehabilitated, and is a fully productive member of society. Defendant C.K. was adjudicated delinquent for sex offenses committed more than two decades ago and challenged the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(g)’s permanent lifetime registration and notification requirements as applied to juveniles. After review of the specific facts of this case, the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded subsection (g)’s lifetime registration and notification requirements as applied to juveniles violated the substantive due process guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution. “Permanently barring juveniles who have committed certain sex offenses from petitioning for relief from the Megan’s Law requirements bears no rational relationship to a legitimate governmental objective.” The Court determined that in the absence of subsection (g), N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f) provided the original safeguard incorporated into Megan’s Law, and a criminal defendant may petition to be released from registration and notification requirements when a superior court judge is persuaded the defendant has been offense-free and does not likely pose a societal risk after a fifteen-year look-back period. Defendant may apply for termination from the Megan’s Law requirements fifteen years from the date of his juvenile adjudication, and be relieved of those requirements provided he meets the standards set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f). View "New Jersey in the Interest of C.K." on Justia Law

The Alameda County Social Services Agency filed a petition (Welf. & Inst. Code 300) to have I.C., age three, and her brother, age five, declared dependents of the court, alleging that I.C. had been sexually abused by Father. In a juvenile dependency proceeding, a child’s out-of-court reports of parental abuse are admissible in evidence regardless of whether the child is competent to testify in court (section 355.) but the court may not base its findings solely on the hearsay statements of a child who may not testify because she is too young to separate truth from falsehood unless the child’s statements bear “special indicia of reliability.” The juvenile court found I.C.’s statements to be unclear, confusing, not credible, and unreliable in significant respects but concluded that the indicia of reliability outweighed the indicia of unreliability. The court adjudged her a dependent of the court and ordered her father removed from the home. The Supreme Court of California reversed. The court failed to take adequate account of the confounding role of I.C.’s prior molestation and her subsequent encounter with the prior molester. The timing and content of I.C.’s allegations concerning Father strongly suggested a relationship to her earlier molestation. The court noted that some of I.C.’s allegations were actually false. View "In re I.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the separate juvenile court of Douglas County extending a juvenile’s term of probation and imposing additional community service, holding that the court did not follow applicable statutory procedures and thereby exceeded its statutory authority.The State moved to revoke probation after the juvenile, who was on probation pursuant to a previous adjudication, allegedly committed a new offense. When the juvenile entered a denial to the new charge, however, the State withdrew its motion. The juvenile court nonetheless extended the term of probation and imposed additional community service. The Supreme Court vacated the order and remanded the cause for further proceedings, holding that the juvenile court exceeded its statutory authority in changing the terms of the juvenile’s probation. View "In re Interest of Josue G." on Justia Law

Life without parole (LWOP) for juveniles does not always offend the federal or Kentucky Constitutions, so long as it comports with a discretionary scheme and the defendant has a meaningful opportunity for the jury to consider mitigating evidence.Appellant was under the age of eighteen when he participated in the murder of two people and the deadly assault of a twelve-year-old girl. The circuit court sentenced Appellant to LWOP. In this appeal from the denial of relief on Appellant’s third Ky. R. Criminal. P. 11.42 motion and his second Ky. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion, the Supreme Court held (1) Appellant’s sentencing was constitutionally permissible; but (2) under this Court’s more recent rulings regarding penalties allowable under the juvenile code, Appellant’s sentence was statutorily prohibited. Consequently, the Court remanded this case for the trial court to impose the lawful sentence of LWOP for twenty-five years. View "Phon v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law