Continuance of Juvenile Delinquency Proceeding, Accompanied by Child’s Admission to Charged Offense, Is a Continuance Without Adjudication, Which Limits Jurisdiction to 180 Days.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: C. J. H., Child. Minn.Ct.App. 5/18/2015.  Juvenile court has its own set of rules and that’s what this case is all about.  Specifically, under those rules did C.J.H. get a continuance for dismissal in which case the juvenile court maintained jurisdiction until C.J.H. hit his nineteenth birthday?  Or, did C.J.H. get a continuance without adjudication in which case the juvenile court could maintain jurisdiction only for one hundred eighty days from the date of the order?

The state petitioned C.J.H. with third degree criminal sexual conduct, attempted third degree criminal sexual conduct, and consumption of alcohol by a minor.  At his first appearance, C.J.H. admitted facts which established his guilt of attempted third degree criminal sexual conduct.  He also waived his right to a speedy trial, to remain silent, to confront witnesses, and conceded that he was waiving his right to defend himself at a later date.  The juvenile court then  said something to C.J.H. that everyone in the courtroom understood to amount to a continuance for dismissal until his nineteenth birthday. 

Sure enough, C.J.H. violated the conditions of the continuance but he did so more than one hundred eighty days from the date of the order.  C.J.H. said that what the juvenile court had actually done back at the first appearance was to give him this continuance without adjudication which meant that because the one hundred eighty days was up the court no longer had jurisdiction.  The juvenile court said, no, everyone knew damn well that what had happened was a continuance for dismissal, stayed to age nineteen.

The court of appeals says that C.J.H. has it right.  A continuance for dismissal, which is authorized under Rule 14, is a continuance without a finding that the allegations of the petition have been proved.  The kid does have to waive his right to a speedy trial.  Here, C.J.H. did that and then some; he waived just about everything that could be waived to the point of agreeing that if he got hauled into court on a violation all that had to happen for adjudication was to read the transcript from the first appearance. 

On the other hand, a continuance without adjudication under Rule 15 does require that the juvenile court find that the allegations have been proved.  Although the juvenile court did not say the exact magic words – the court finds, blah blah blah - it did hear and accept C.J.H.’s admission to the elements of attempted CSC, and it did say that C.J.H.’s admissions established a factual basis for the charged offense. 

The upshot is that the court of appeals concluded that what C.J.H. did looked for all the world like a Rule 15 continuance without adjudication, which limits the juvenile court’s jurisdiction for to hundred eighty days.  The court thus had no jurisdiction to entertain the violation and to adjudicate guilt.  That adjudication is thus vacated.