Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

Ramiro Munoz, a member of a criminal street gang, was convicted in 2008 of first-degree murder and shooting at an occupied motor vehicle, with firearm and gang allegations found true. Munoz, who was 15 years old at the time of the crime, was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison. In 2023, Munoz filed a petition for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), arguing that his sentence was the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole, making him eligible for relief under the statute.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Munoz's petition, stating that he would be eligible for parole under section 3051 in 2029, when he would be 39 years old. Munoz appealed the decision, and the case was reviewed by the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven.The Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court's decision, holding that Munoz's sentence of 50 years to life is not the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole. The court concluded that section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), applies only to juvenile offenders explicitly sentenced to life without the possibility of parole and does not extend to those with lengthy sentences that may be considered de facto life without parole. The court also noted that Munoz would have a realistic opportunity to obtain release from prison during his expected lifetime, distinguishing his case from others with significantly longer sentences. View "People v. Munoz" on Justia Law

In this case, the State charged an adult with capital murder, alleging he was sixteen at the time of the offense. The juvenile court found it was not practicable to proceed before the adult turned eighteen because the State lacked probable cause to arrest him at that time. The court of appeals reversed and dismissed the case, holding that probable cause existed to arrest him before he turned eighteen, thus the State failed to establish it was impracticable to proceed.The juvenile court granted the State’s motion to transfer the case to adult criminal court, combining elements of two statutory good cause alternatives. The court of appeals vacated the order and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, noting the juvenile court’s findings were difficult to decipher and lacked a “due diligence” finding required by one of the statutory alternatives. The court of appeals concluded that the State had sufficient evidence to establish probable cause before the respondent turned eighteen, and the reasons for delay were not beyond the State’s control.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and largely agreed with the dissenting justice from the court of appeals. The Court held that the development of probable cause alone does not determine whether it is “practicable to proceed” with a juvenile prosecution before a person reaches adulthood. Other reasons beyond the control of the State may support such a finding. The Court found that the juvenile court erred in conflating “practicable to proceed” with the existence of probable cause and remanded the case to the juvenile court for a new transfer hearing. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "IN THE MATTER OF J.J.T." on Justia Law

In March 2023, J.D. was involved in two separate incidents at the Pacific View Mall. In the first incident, J.D. stole a cell phone from Mia M. while she was sitting with friends. Later that day, J.D. and three others attacked Priscilla E., taking her cell phone and assaulting her. Both incidents were captured on mall surveillance, and the victims identified J.D. as the perpetrator.The Ventura County District Attorney's office filed a juvenile petition in July 2023, charging J.D. with the theft of Mia's cell phone. J.D. admitted to the theft in February 2024 and was placed on probation. In March 2024, a subsequent petition was filed, charging J.D. with felony assault for the attack on Priscilla. J.D. filed a motion to dismiss the felony assault charge, arguing that the prosecution should have been aware of both offenses and that they should have been prosecuted together.The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the two incidents were separate and distinct, occurring at different times and locations. The court determined that the evidence needed to prove the assault on Priscilla did not overlap significantly with the evidence needed to prove the theft from Mia.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that the offenses were not part of a singular transaction and that the prosecution was not required to join the charges in a single proceeding. The court found no significant overlap in the evidence and concluded that the Kellett rule did not apply, as the incidents were distinct in time, location, and nature. The judgment denying the motion to dismiss was affirmed. View "In re J.D." on Justia Law

The defendant, a seventeen-year-old, was convicted of the abduction and murder of eighty-nine-year-old Elleze Kennedy. Along with his co-defendants, the defendant followed Ms. Kennedy home, assaulted her, and placed her in the trunk of her car. They later set the car on fire, resulting in Ms. Kennedy's death from carbon monoxide poisoning. The defendant was sentenced to life in prison without parole.The Superior Court of Onslow County initially sentenced the defendant to life without parole. The Court of Appeals upheld this sentence, finding no error. The defendant then filed a motion for appropriate relief, arguing that his sentence was unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama, which requires consideration of a juvenile's age and potential for rehabilitation before imposing a life without parole sentence. The Superior Court held a resentencing hearing and reaffirmed the life without parole sentence, considering the Miller factors.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the case. The court held that the defendant's J.E.B. claim, alleging gender bias in jury selection, was procedurally barred because it was not raised at trial or on direct appeal. The court also affirmed the lower court's decision to sentence the defendant to life without parole, finding that the sentencing court properly considered the Miller factors, including the defendant's age, immaturity, ability to appreciate risks, prior record, mental health, and potential for rehabilitation. The court concluded that the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in weighing these factors and that the sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed. View "State v. Sims" on Justia Law

In 2001, a 17-year-old Morris Mullins killed a 78-year-old widow, Amy Davis, and was charged as an adult with rape and aggravated murder. Mullins pled guilty to aggravated murder in exchange for the State dropping the rape charge and not seeking the death penalty. He was sentenced to life without parole (LWOP). At the sentencing, the court considered evidence of Mullins’s dysfunctional upbringing and psychological evaluation but ultimately imposed a juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) sentence.Mullins later challenged his sentence as unconstitutional, citing the Eighth Amendment and the Utah Constitution. In 2013, he filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 22(e) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, arguing that his sentence was unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama. The district court denied his motion in 2016, and Mullins’s appeal was delayed until 2020 due to ineffective assistance of counsel.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the sentencing court properly considered Mullins’s youth and potential for change as required by Miller and subsequent cases. The court found that the sentencing judge’s comments suggested ambiguity about Mullins’s capacity for change, undermining confidence in the constitutionality of the JLWOP sentence. The court vacated Mullins’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, emphasizing the need to consider the constitutional implications of Mullins’s youth and potential for rehabilitation. View "Galassi v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2001, Morris Mullins, then seventeen, killed a seventy-eight-year-old widow, Amy Davis, in her home. He was charged as an adult with rape and aggravated murder. Mullins pled guilty to aggravated murder in exchange for the State dropping the rape charge and not seeking the death penalty. He was sentenced to life without parole (LWOP). At sentencing, the court considered evidence of Mullins's dysfunctional upbringing and psychological evaluations but ultimately imposed a juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) sentence.Mullins later challenged his sentence as unconstitutional, citing the Eighth Amendment and the Utah Constitution. In 2013, he filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 22(e) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, arguing that his sentence was unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama, which held that mandatory JLWOP for juveniles violated the Eighth Amendment. The district court denied his motion in 2016, and Mullins's appeal was delayed until 2020 due to ineffective assistance of counsel.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether Mullins's JLWOP sentence was constitutional. The court held that the sentencing judge's comments suggested ambiguity about Mullins's capacity for change, which undermined confidence in the appropriateness of the JLWOP sentence. The court vacated Mullins's sentence and remanded for resentencing, emphasizing the need to consider Mullins's youth and potential for rehabilitation in light of Miller and its progeny. The court did not find the sentencing statute unconstitutionally vague or the JLWOP categorically unconstitutional but required a more thorough consideration of Mullins's youth and potential for change. View "State v. Mullins" on Justia Law

A fifteen-year-old, J.Q.R., sold fentanyl-laced pills to two classmates, B.H. and R.J., resulting in R.J.'s death from an overdose. During the investigation, police discovered evidence implicating J.Q.R.'s father in illegal drug activities. The father waived J.Q.R.'s Miranda rights twice, leading to J.Q.R. making incriminating statements to the police.The Hendricks Superior Court admitted J.Q.R.'s statements into evidence over his objections, arguing that his father had an adverse interest due to his own criminal conduct. The court adjudicated J.Q.R. as a delinquent child. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that an adverse interest may arise if an adult stands to personally benefit from waiving a child's rights to the child's detriment. The court found that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the father had no adverse interest when he waived J.Q.R.'s rights, given the evidence of the father's own drug activities. Therefore, the trial court erred in admitting J.Q.R.'s statements.However, the Indiana Supreme Court concluded that the error was harmless because independent evidence, such as text messages, established that J.Q.R. knew the pills contained fentanyl. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's adjudication of J.Q.R. as a delinquent child. View "J.Q.R. v. State" on Justia Law

Johnny Brown was born on August 27, 1998. On August 26, 2019, the State filed a delinquency petition in juvenile court alleging that Brown committed child molesting between June 1, 2015, and August 31, 2016. The juvenile court authorized the petition and held an initial hearing. After Brown turned twenty-one, he objected to the juvenile court's jurisdiction, but the court denied his objection and later waived the case to adult court. Brown was convicted of Class C felony child molesting in adult court.Brown filed a motion to correct error, arguing that the adult court lacked jurisdiction because he was over twenty-one at the time of the waiver hearing. The trial court denied his motion and sentenced him to four years, with credit for time served and the remainder suspended to probation. Brown appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed his conviction, holding that retroactive application of new jurisdictional amendments would violate the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction at the time of Brown's trial because he fell into a jurisdictional gap identified in previous cases. The court also determined that the amendments to the jurisdiction statutes, enacted while Brown's case was pending, did not apply retroactively. As a result, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed Brown's conviction and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Brown v. State" on Justia Law

M.T., a 16-year-old juvenile, was charged with simple assault and willful concealment. His parents expressed that they did not feel safe with him at home and requested residential treatment. M.T. was placed in shelter care but was removed due to dangerous behavior, including physical altercations and property damage. The shelter exercised its right to terminate treatment, leading to M.T.'s placement at the Sununu Youth Services Center (SYSC).The Circuit Court held an adjudicatory hearing where M.T. pled true to the charges. The court scheduled a dispositional hearing and, in the interim, heard arguments regarding M.T.'s placement. The juvenile probation and parole officer (JPPO) testified that no alternative placements were available. The court ordered M.T. to be detained at SYSC, citing the lack of less restrictive options and the need for M.T.'s safety and supervision.At the dispositional hearing, the State recommended that M.T. remain at SYSC due to his behavior and the lack of alternative placements. M.T. requested to return to his parents, but the court found this unsuitable. The court committed M.T. to SYSC for the remainder of his minority, emphasizing the need for intensive care and supervision and the unavailability of other options. The court also ordered the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to continue searching for less restrictive placements, including out-of-state options.The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the trial court sustainably exercised its discretion in considering the lack of available placements and committing M.T. to SYSC. The court also found that M.T. waived his argument regarding the right to counsel during the Comprehensive Assessment for Treatment (CAT) interview. View "In re M.T." on Justia Law

T.B., a juvenile, was adjudged delinquent by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for carrying a pistol without a license and possessing unregistered ammunition. The case arose from two Instagram live videos observed by Officer Moore of the Metropolitan Police Department. In the first video, T.B. was seen displaying a black Glock-style handgun. In the second video, T.B. was seen with a light-colored object in his waistband, which officers believed to be a firearm. When officers arrived at the scene, they found a tan-gold-colored pistol on the ground near where T.B. had been standing.The Superior Court incorporated Officer Moore’s testimony from a suppression hearing into the trial. Officer Moore testified about the events leading to T.B.'s arrest and the officers' observations from the Instagram videos. Officer Laielli also testified, describing T.B.'s behavior in the second video as characteristic of an armed gunman. The court found the evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that T.B. possessed the tan-gold-colored pistol and committed him to the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services for up to one year.On appeal, T.B. argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s findings and that the trial court erred in admitting the officers’ testimony. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the evidence, including the Instagram videos and the officers’ observations, was sufficient to support the trial court’s findings. The appellate court also concluded that any error in admitting the officers’ testimony was harmless, as the trial court’s findings were based on its own viewing of the video evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of delinquency. View "In re T.B." on Justia Law