E.J.J. Probation Violations Must be Alleged Before Age Twenty-One.

  State v. J.E.S., Minn.Ct.App., 3/24/2009.  JES pled guilty to attempted aggravated robbery.  The district court designated him as an extended jurisdiction juvenile (EJJ).  There were numerous conditions.  Time goes by.  On May 22, 2007, police arrested JES.  They had two reasons for doing so.  First, there were alleged probation violations, including riding the bus without paying, which probably wouldn't have happened had JES been gainfully employed, another alleged violation.  They also arrested JES on suspicion of committing criminal sexual conduct.  During the obligatory search incident to the arrest, police found a TASER in JES's pocket.

The following day, the juvenile court revised the probation violation report to include the arrest on the sex offense; it did not mention possession of the TASER.  More time goes by.  In August, JES turned twenty-one; in October, a jury acquitted him on the sex offense.  JES thought it was time to say good by to his EJJ PO.  JES moved to be discharged from EJJ but the juvenile court said, no.  The revised probation violation report, the court said, tolled the term of EJJ probation.  Time continues to go by.

In November, the juvenile court finally got around to alleging possession of the TASER as a probation violation.  JES's lawyer said, "Gotcha!" on the TASER allegation because it had been made after JES turned twenty-one.  Again, the juvenile court said, no, revoked probation and executed the stayed adult sentence (of forty-eight months).  On appeal, the defense "Gotcha!" carries the day.

By statute, EJJ jurisdiction only extends to the juvenile's twenty-first birthday.  Minn.Stat. 260B.193.  Nonetheless, a juvenile court has jurisdiction after age twenty-one to complete an EJJ probation revocation that was "commenced" before that birthday.  In re Welfare of V.D.M., 623 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Minn. App. 2001).  So, when is a probation revocation "commenced"?

Read the rule. 

A revocation proceeding is "commenced" by the issuance of a warrant or summons that, in turn, is based upon a written report that describes "the facts and circumstances upon which the request for revocation is based."  Minn. R. Juv. Delinq. P. 19.11, subd. 1(A).

The appellate court said that while there were other allegations made in support of revocation -not paying the bus fare - the TASER allegation did not get made until after JES's twenty-first birthday.  The juvenile court simply had no authority to base revocation on possession of the TASER, because that allegation did not get made until after JES turned twenty-one.  The appellate court sent the case back to the juvenile court to answer the question whether not paying the bus driver sufficed to impose a forty-eight month prison sentence.