Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

Daniel Paul Sansone, the defendant-appellant, was convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment, the upper end of the sentencing guideline range. Sansone challenged the procedural integrity and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed his claims.Sansone had argued that his criminal history score was erroneously inflated due to the inclusion of his juvenile adjudications, asserting that his commitment to the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services (DYS) was not a sentence of confinement. The court rejected this argument, noting that prior case law had upheld the inclusion of such adjudications as constituting sentences of confinement.Sansone also claimed there was insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that his juvenile adjudications resulted in confinement for at least sixty days, which was necessary for the assignment of criminal history points under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG). The Court of Appeals found that Sansone could not show a plain error in this regard, as the record was ambiguous and did not allow for a clear determination of the length of his confinement.Regarding the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, Sansone argued that the sentencing court had overstated the seriousness of his past criminal record and failed to adequately consider his personal history. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the sentencing court had considered all relevant factors, and Sansone's real complaint was about the weight given to certain factors, not their consideration. The court upheld the sentence, affirming the district court's decision. View "US v. Sansone" on Justia Law

In California, a minor identified as Tony R. was committed to a secure youth treatment facility following his involvement in a violent robbery. Tony R. appealed the juvenile court's denial of his request for a reduction of his baseline term of confinement at his first six-month review hearing. He argued that the court lacked the authority to deny the request and, if it did have such authority, it abused its discretion.Tony R. was one of three youths who brutally attacked and robbed two men, resulting in severe injuries, including paralysis for one of the victims. In a separate incident, Tony R. was also involved in an assault at his high school. He was subsequently arrested and committed to a secure youth treatment facility for a maximum term of 11 years or until age 25, with a baseline term of four years.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Two affirmed the juvenile court's decision. The court found that under the governing legislation, the juvenile court had the discretion to reduce the baseline term of confinement but was not required to do so. The court determined that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tony R.'s request for a reduction in his baseline term of confinement. The court noted that while Tony R. was performing well in his rehabilitation program, he had committed extremely serious offenses, had significant treatment needs, and had been assessed as being at high risk for re-offense. The court held that it was within the juvenile court's discretion to determine that a reduction of his baseline term this early in his period of confinement would not serve his rehabilitative needs and public safety concerns. View "In re Tony R." on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana upheld the decision of the Montana First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, committing the appellant, C.M., a youth, to the custody of the Department of Corrections for placement in a state youth correctional facility until the age of 18. The appellant was charged with sex offenses against three of his high school classmates and he appealed the decision on the grounds that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to make objections to the admission of various hearsay statements.The court concluded that the appellant's counsel's failure to object to the admission of hearsay statements did not result in substantial prejudice. The court noted that the state presented sufficient admissible evidence to the jury that proved the same facts as the prior consistent statements and bus records. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant's counsel vigorously challenged the complaining witnesses' testimony by highlighting inconsistencies and gaps in their testimony, as well as aspects of the investigation. As a result, the court found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by any alleged deficient performance by his counsel and affirmed the lower court's decision. View "Matter of C.M" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed as moot the appeal by the Louisiana Governor and other state officials challenging a district court’s preliminary injunction. Originally, the district court had ordered the state officials to remove juvenile offenders from the Bridge City Center for Youth at West Feliciana (BCCY-WF) and barred them from housing juveniles at the facility in the future. The state officials appealed this decision. However, the preliminary injunction automatically expired under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) before the appeal could be resolved, rendering the appeal moot. The Court of Appeals also vacated the district court's underlying order because it was moot. The Court noted that the appeal did not meet the exception for mootness for issues that are capable of repetition but evade review, as the state officials could not show that similar future injunctions would evade review or that they would again be subject to the same action. View "Smith v. Edwards" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Georgia had to determine whether a unit-of-prosecution analysis or a required evidence analysis should be used to address the question of merger as to one count of aggravated child molestation and two counts of child molestation. Tony Shropshire was convicted of aggravated child molestation, two counts of child molestation, incest, and first-degree cruelty to children, based on incidents that occurred in 2001 with his five- or six-year-old niece. Shropshire argued on appeal that the two child molestation counts should have merged into the aggravated child molestation conviction. The Court of Appeals applied a unit-of-prosecution analysis and agreed, merging the counts and vacating Shropshire's convictions and sentences for aggravated child molestation and child molestation. The Supreme Court of Georgia vacated this part of the Court of Appeals's judgment and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held that a unit-of-prosecution analysis should be applied to determine whether the two counts of child molestation (the same crime) merge. However, as child molestation and aggravated child molestation are different crimes, a required evidence analysis should be applied to determine whether these two different crimes merge. The Court of Appeals erred in applying a unit-of-prosecution analysis rather than a required evidence analysis to this question. The case was remanded for the Court of Appeals to apply the correct analyses. View "THE STATE v. SHROPSHIRE" on Justia Law

In this case from the Supreme Court of Iowa, the appellant, David Gordon, a minor at the time of committing his crimes, was charged with theft in the first degree and willful injury resulting in bodily injury. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to ten years in prison for the theft conviction and five years for the assault conviction, with the sentences to run concurrently. Gordon appealed the sentence and also filed a motion requesting reconsideration of the sentence under Iowa Code § 902.4. The district court reconsidered the sentence and placed Gordon on probation for up to five years. Gordon then filed a petition for writ of certiorari challenging his resentencing, arguing that the district court had abused its discretion by not granting him a deferred judgment in its initial sentencing, and then by wrongly concluding that it lacked the authority to do so under § 902.4 when resentencing him.The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in the initial sentencing. It found that the district court had considered and weighed the arguments for and against a deferred judgment, and had thoroughly explained its reasoning for the sentence imposed. As for Gordon's argument about the district court's power to defer judgment when reconsidering a sentence under § 902.4, the Supreme Court held that a deferred judgment involved more than a sentence. It involved the deferring of a judgment adjudicating guilt as well as a sentence. The court concluded that the district court correctly interpreted its authority under § 902.4 when it determined that it could not defer judgment when reconsidering Gordon's sentence. Therefore, the court affirmed Gordon's conviction and sentence and annulled the writ of certiorari. View "State of Iowa v. Gordon" on Justia Law

This case from the Supreme Court of Iowa involves a juvenile, I.S., who was charged with sexual exploitation of a minor and possession of child pornography. The juvenile court initially waived its jurisdiction over the case, allowing it to be tried in the district court. However, the juvenile court later vacated its waiver and reclaimed jurisdiction over the case. The State sought a review of the juvenile court's decision to vacate its earlier order, arguing that the juvenile court no longer had jurisdiction or authority to modify or vacate the waiver order once it had been issued.The Supreme Court of Iowa held that the juvenile court did not have the authority to reclaim jurisdiction over the case after it had waived it to the district court. The court found that there was no provision in Iowa law for such a "revocation of waiver." The court reasoned that once a case has been transferred or waived to another court, the transferring court loses jurisdiction over the parties. The court also noted that allowing a juvenile court to reclaim jurisdiction could lead to disruption of proceedings and friction between the district and juvenile courts.Therefore, the court sustained the State's writ, vacated the juvenile court's revocation of its waiver of jurisdiction, and remanded the case, with the expectation that any further proceedings would occur in the district court. View "State of Iowa v. Iowa Juvenile Court for Plymouth County" on Justia Law

In the case under review, the defendant, Paradise Burkhead, was charged with crimes committed when she was a juvenile. Under the juvenile transfer statute in effect at the time of her hearing, her case was transferred from the Jefferson District Court to the Jefferson Circuit Court for adult prosecution because she was over fourteen years old and had committed a felony with a firearm. After a new juvenile transfer statute came into effect, which eliminated the mandatory transfer requirement, Burkhead sought to have her case transferred back to the district court for a second transfer hearing. The circuit court granted her motion, despite the Commonwealth's objection. The Commonwealth appealed this decision, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the lower courts' decisions.The Supreme Court of Kentucky held that the Commonwealth's interlocutory appeal was proper and that the circuit court erred by ordering a second transfer hearing. The court found that the interlocutory appeal was justified under KRS 22A.020(4) because it was adverse to the Commonwealth's interests, the proceedings were not suspended, the appeal followed normal rules and procedures, and the Attorney General affirmed that appellate review was important to the correct and uniform administration of the law.As for the retroactive application of the new juvenile transfer statute, the court held that "proceedings" in KRS 446.110 refers to the distinct phases of a case. Therefore, the court must apply the current procedural law governing the particular procedural phase being undertaken. The court held the transfer hearing was a completed phase of the criminal process, and nothing in KRS 446.110 suggested that a court must repeat a completed phase to comply with a procedural amendment. Therefore, the circuit court erred in remanding the case for a second transfer hearing. The case was remanded to the Jefferson Circuit Court for further proceedings. View "COMMONWEALTH V. BURKHEAD" on Justia Law

In 2004, De’Andre Dampier was convicted of a capital murder committed during an auto-dealership robbery when he was 16 years old. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole, which was the only statutory sentence available at the time. In 2012, the United States Supreme Court ruled that imposing mandatory life-without-parole sentences on juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment. Based on this ruling, the Supreme Court of Mississippi granted Dampier’s request to seek post-conviction relief from his life-without-parole sentence. However, before the trial court addressed any of the factors from the US Supreme Court decision, it vacated Dampier’s life-without-parole sentence. Dampier then requested that a jury be convened to decide if he should be sentenced to life with or without parole, but the trial judge denied this request. After a hearing in which the trial judge considered the factors from the US Supreme Court decision, the judge reimposed a sentence of life in prison without parole.The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, holding that Dampier did not have a statutory right to be sentenced by a jury. The court emphasized that the decision to be made by the trial court was whether Dampier was entitled to post-conviction relief from his life-without-parole sentence, imposed for a crime committed when he was a juvenile. The court also agreed with the lower courts that the trial judge did not err by denying Dampier’s request for jury sentencing. Furthermore, the court agreed with the lower courts that the trial court did not err by ruling that, after a careful consideration of the factors from the US Supreme Court decision, life without parole was an appropriate sentence for Dampier’s crime. View "Dampier v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, the parents of three children under the jurisdiction of the Department of Human Services (DHS) appealed the juvenile court's decision to change the placement preference for their children from the mother's home to foster care. However, while the appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, the juvenile court issued additional decisions determining that substitute care was still the appropriate placement preference for the children. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as moot due to these subsequent judgments, ruling that it could not conclude without speculation that the challenged judgments would have a practical effect on the parents' rights. The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding that the Court of Appeals had incorrectly placed the burden on the parents to prove that the appeal was not moot, rather than on DHS to prove that it was. However, the Supreme Court found that the juvenile court's subsequent dismissal of the dependency cases altogether did render the appeals moot, as the parents and the children were no longer wards of the court and the original substitute-care placement determination no longer had a practical effect on the parties. The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeals as moot. View "Dept. of Human Services v. T. J. N." on Justia Law