In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.J.H., Child, Minn.S.Ct., 4/27/2016. The state charged C.J.H. with third degree criminal sexual conduct, attempted third degree criminal sexual conduct, and underage drinking. At his first appearance, the lawyers told the juvenile judge that there was an agreement for a "continuance for a dismissal" under juvenile rule 14.01, subd. 1. Under the agreement C.J.H. had to provide a factual basis to the attempt charge. Also, if he were unsuccessful with complying with the terms of the continuance for dismissal this factual basis would be submitted to the court with the understanding that this would likely result in a finding of guilt. Although the prosecutor and the judge kept saying that C.J.H. was "pleading guilty" or "was guilty" the judge never made a finding that the allegations had been proven. And never said that he was guilty.
Eventually C.J.H. violated the terms of the agreement and the juvenile court then adjudicated him delinquent. C.J.H. appealed and said for the first time that, wait a minute, he hadn't really done a continuance for dismissal; rather, he'd done a "continuance without adjudication." He'd admitted to the crime, he'd waived his trial rights, so the only thing missing was the adjudication. C.J.H. said this because if that were true then by the time the juvenile court violated him the court's jurisdiction had expired. Justice Hudson essentially says, nice try but no. Despite the sloppiness of the initial appearance the Justice said that because the juvenile judge never made a finding that the allegations of the petition had been proven, something that the rule on continuances without adjudication requires, there was no "continuance without adjudication."
Even though there hadn't been an adjudication and even though the case had been continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment