Case Title: IN RE MARTEN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1977-11-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13833 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 IN RE: EUGENE H. MARTEN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Appellant: William Hutchison argued, Helena, Montana William J. Miele, Miles City, Montana For Respondent : Honorable A. B. Martin argued, District Judge, Miles City, Montana Submitted: June 10, 1977 4 1 t7 1 , Filed: M r . Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court: This is an original proceeding by a 17 year old male youth seeking a w r i t of habeas corpus, supervisory control, or other appropriate r e l i e f t o t e s t the legality of pro- ceedings leading t o h i s detention over a weekend in M a y 1977, in the juvenile part of the Custer County j a i l i n Miles City, Montana. The thrust of the youth's petition is that he was unlaw- fully incarcerated i n that: (1) H e was denied the assistance of counsel, and (2) he was incarcerated in j a i l by failure of the Youth Court judge t o follow the statutory procedures and requirements of the Montana Youth Court Act. The principal facts concerning the youth are contained i n the report of Donald P. Wright, youth probation officer of the Sixteenth Judicial ~ i s t r i c t , t o the d i s t r i c t court and s e t out verbatim here: " A t approximately 12:00 Noon, on the 20th day of May, 1977, Gene Marten, a 9outh under the age of eighteen years, was referred to m e charged with being i n possession of stolen property, 94-6-302(3C), of the Revised Code of Montana, 1947 a s amended, by the Rose- bud County Sheriff's Department. 11 Gene is a seventeen year old youth who is living with the Lovells in Forsyth. This home is not a licensed foster home. H i s father, Eugene Marten, whose l a s t 'known residence was in Great Falls, Montana, is unavailable and I have not been able t o contact him t o date. I contacted the Cascade County Probation Office and they were unable t o contact M r . Marten, however, they did talk t o the boy's grandparents, who stated that they believed that M r . Marten had l e f t Great Falls. "Mr. Dan Lovell stated that Gene's father was going t o be coming through the town of Forsyth sometime over t h i s weekend, and that M r . Marten was going t o stop by the Lovell residence while i n Forsyth. 11 Gene Marten was under the supervision of the Children's Services Office i n Rosebud County u n t i l approximately one month ago. Presently, he has no legal guardian i n Forsyth and the whereabouts of h i s father are unknown. "I believe and it is m y opinion that it is i n Gene Marten's best interests t o be held in custody u n t i l such time as a hearing can be held before the District Judge of the 16th Judicial District Youth Court. "At noon today, when Gene was referred to m y office, there was no available space i n the juvenile portion of the Rosebud County j a i l . The county attorney, John Forsyth, and District Judge A . B . Coa te were tied up i n a jury t r i a l and I transported Gene Marten t o Miles City, Montana under the authority of the Montana Youth Court Act, Section 10-1212, t o be placed i n the juvenile portion of the Custer County j a i l pending a petition being f i l e d and a subsequent hearing before the District Youth Court Judge." Following the youth's transfer t o Miles City, the Youth Court judge, the Hon. A.B. Martin, held a hearing, a transcript of which is before t h i s Court. In the middle of t h i s hearing, an attorney from Montana Legal Services appeared and requested the right "to say something". The following is a verbatim transcript of what occurred following the appearance of the Legal Services attorney a t the hearing: "MR. MIELE: Your Honor, i f I could say something please. "THE COURT : Well, I ' m going t o make an order and then 1'11 l e t you say it. "MR. PIIELE: I ' d l i k e t o say it before the order, because I ' m sure i t ' s relevant. "THE COURT : I 'm going to run this and then you can say whatever you want to. N o w you prepare t h i s order, J i m , and it w i l l be t o t h i s effect. "The Honorable Alfred B. Coate, presiding Youth Court Judge of Rosebud County, being elsewhere occupied on judicial business, the written report and sworn testimony of Don Wright, Juvenile Probation Officer of Rosebud County, has submitted t o the undersigned Youth Court Judge of the Sixteenth Judicial District of Miles City, Montana, and it appearing from said report that the -- and the testimony submitted, that "1. There is probable cause t o believe that said juvenile has committed the offense of being i n posses- sion of stolen property. "2. That the parents of said child cannot be reached a t the present time, and that there is no home or institution i n which said youth can temporarily be detained pending further proceedings, "Now Therefore it is Ordered that Donald P. Wright, a Juvenile Officer, may take custody of said juvenile and detain him i n the Custer County j a i l , pending the f i l i n g of a formal petition by the County Attorney of Rosebud County. Such detention not t o exceed five days, and the County Attorney shall forthwith f i l e said formal petition. "It Is Further Ordered, that J. Dennis Corbin, attorney of Miles City, Montana, be appointed a s said youth's attorney, who w i l l as soon as reasonably possible, contact said youth and attend t o the protection of h i s legal rights. "MR. MIELE: May I make a statement on the record? "THE COURT: A l l right. "MR. MIELE: F i r s t of a l l , Gene contacted m y office yesterday i n regard t o the representation of Gene, and I have stated t o him that I would represent him. Second of a l l , i n regard t o the statement that there is no available home, I don't think that i s entirely accurate. W e have a worker here from the Child Abuse Project i n Rosebud County, who could s t a t e that the child has been living i n a family home, that the child has been there for some period of t i m e , and that the person who i s i n charge of that home, is ready, willing and able t o come forward and give assurances i n accordance with RCM 10-1213, that the child w i l l be present i n court on Monday, or whatever time is s e t for the hearing. Another matter which I don't know i f i t ' s legal, but I question the ethics of it, is the fact that I talked t o M r . Wright t h i s morning, or t h i s afternoon and told him that I was looking into the fact that the boy was i n j a i l , and that I would be i n touch with him t h i s afternoon, and that there is a good chance that I would bring a habeas corpus petition before t h i s court to have the boy l e t out, and I just question the ethics of him coming up here without notifying me when he knows that I was representing the boy. "THE COURT: He advised m e that you had talked with him, so I know about that, and I have appointed an attorney for him, and i f you want t o t a l k t o h i s attorney go ahead. "MR. MIELE: Is the Court interested i n hearing any of the testimony that w e can offer? "THE COURT: No, I ' m not. That's it, the order is signed. You prepare that order forthwith and you w i l l see that he gets a copy. "MR. WRIGHT : Yes, Your Honor. "THE COURT: And you make a copy of the minutes and send it over, i f you can, with Don Wright when he returns, and then we'll l e t Judge Coate handle this thing, and I imagine it w i l l be handled Monday. "MR. WRIGHT: Yes, Your Honor. "THE COURT : And i f anyone else wants to appear, we'll l e t Judge Coate handle it. "MR. WRIGHT: Your Honor, the home that the boy has been staying in, is not a licensed foster home, and the same portion of the youth court statute stated by M r . Miele, also states that the boy shall or w i l l be held in a home authorized by the Court, i f there is no parents or guardian present, and this was not a licensed foster home. "MR. MIELE: I might point out 10-1212, where it states that i f the child has no parent, guardian or other person able t o provide supervision and care for him and return him to the court when required, and I don't see any requirement of a licensed home. "THE COURT: Well you seem to overlook the fact that the Juvenile Court and the Juvenile Officers are attending t o the interest of t h i s child, as well a s that of society. Furthermore, the Court has taken the necessary action to protect the legal rights of t h i s boy, and I think that is a l l that is necessary." O n M a y 23, 1977, Montana Legal Services Association filed an original proceeding in this Court for a w r i t of habeas corpus, supervisory control or other appropriate relief accompanied by affidavits of Daniel Lovell, Eugene Herman Marten, the youth involved, Marsha McDede and William J. Miele, the Legal Services attorney, together with a brief in support of the petition. This Court ordered an adversary hearing. Prior to the adversary hearing, Judge Martin filed his response t o the peti- tion which w e set forth verbatim: "The response ordered by the Supreme Court t o the petition for w r i t of habeas corpus or other appropriate r e l i e f f i l e d in the above entitled matter i s herewith submitted in narrative form without argu- ment. What is said is m y recollection of events leading up t o the peremptory order for temporary deten- tion of the youth. "Mr. Donald Wright who is the resident juvenile officer of Rosebud County came t o m y office on Friday afternoon, M a y 20, 1977, explaining that he had a problem which Judge Coate or the County Attorney could not a c t upon because they were presently occupied with a jury t r i a l . To the best of m y recollection M r . Wright gave the following background. he father and mather of the Marten boy had been divorced in Idaho. The father had been awarded custody of the children but had subsequently been deprived by court order of the two younger children because of abuse and neglect. In some manner not clear t o me, Eugene Marten was taken under the wing of a federal agency which M r . Wright referred to as 'Childrens Service.' I had never heard of t h i s agency and was advised that it was a federally funded agency which was being tested i n selected communities throughout the United States . Apparently it duplicates or augments the service pro- vided by the State of Montana for abused and neglected children, but acts independently from the Montana De- partment of Social and Rehabilitation Services. I note from affidavits of petitioner that the o f f i c i a l t i t l e of the agency i s '~osebud County Northern Cheyenne Child Abuse and Neglect Project . ' "The Marten youth was placed in a foster home by the Agency in Forsyth, Montana, but declined t o follow the rules and regulations imposed by that home. Be- cause of the differences he was having with h i s foster parents, he moved into a home of a friend by the name of Dan Lovell. This move was given the a f t e r the fact blessing of the agency. It was during t h i s period of h i s residency that the stolen t i r e s and wheels were found i n h i s possession. M r . Wright, i n m y opinion, rightfully took the position that with the apparent criminal violation, the juvenile probation department should take control of the situation. It was also h i s position that the Lovell home w a s not a licensed foster home and under the circumstances described by him, was not a suitable home for detention of the boy pending further investigation and hearing on the youth's detention. It was t o t h i s home that M r . Miele believed the youth should be returned. "Mr. Wright made an e f f o r t t o contact the youth's father. H e had called the juvenile probation office in Great Falls, who i n turn contacted the youth's grand- parents who did not know where the father was, but believed he had gone 'somewhere east' looking for a job. "With t h i s information I directed M r . Wright t o f i l e a written report stating i n substance what he had related, together with a request t o f i l e a petition alleging juvenile delinquency. H e was then t o return with the youth and give o r a l t e s t i - mony. This was done but during the course of the testimony, M r . Miele came striding into the office with a t r a i n of attendants who stood i n the doorway while M r . Miele gave the appearance of wanting t o interrupt. I said nothing and as M r . Miele lis- tened he started shaking h i s head, pulling h i s beard, turning one direction, then the other, and looking back a t the people behind him whose smiles implied they understood M r . Miele ' s dilemma. " M y i r r i t a t i o n with t h i s display was aggravated by accounts of previous confrontations that M r . Miele had had with the juvenile probation officers. A s related by M r . Butz, M r . Miele, on one occasion stormed uninvited into the juvenile probation off ice and in an imperious manner issued ultimatums as t o what the officers could or could not do. This con- frontation reached the point that they were ready t o bodily eject M r . Miele from the office. "On another occasion M r . Wright was attempting t o explain t o M r . Miele, M r . Wright's handling of a certain juvenile. M r . Miele insolently swung around and s a t with h i s back t o M r . Wright. "I have the greatest confidence in M r . Wright. He is not combative and goes about h i s work i n a quiet and thorough manner. I f M r . Miele would appear as a friend, rather than a dictator, the court and its juvenile officers would respond accordingly. "I observed when the Marten youth appeared that he was a mature 17 year old youth. The juvenile detention quarters of the Custer County J a i l was constructed about three years ago and adequate quarters are available for the detention and supervision of juveniles. After ordering that he be confined, I directed M r . Wright to see that the court appointed counsel was immediately put i n touch with the boy, which I a m advised was prmptly done. "Considering the t o t a l i t y of the circumstances, the court and its juvenile officers acted within the s p i r i t and the l e t t e r of the law." Accompanying the d i s t r i c t court's response was the affidavit of the youth probation officer, with a copy of h i s report t o the court attached. Another affidavit of the youth, together with a copy of Judge Coate's order transferring the case t o Lewis and Clark County was attached. Petitioner s e t s forth two issues for t h i s Court's con- sideration: 1. Did the Youth Court e r r i n denying the assistance of available counsel t o the youth i n the predetention hearing before Judge Martin? 2. Did the Youth Court f a i l t o follow the statutory requirements and procedures of the Montana Youth Court Act i n ordering the prehearing detention of Eugene Marten in the Custer County j a i l ? A t the outset, we are confronted with a contention the issues raised in t h i s proceeding are moot a s the youth i s no longer incarcerated and is living with the Love11 family in Forsyth. While it may be true a w r i t of habeas corpus is no longer available t o t e s t the legality of the youth's confine- ment, the application for supervisory control t o t e s t the legality of the proceedings leading t o such confinement i s by no means moot. To deny review is tantamount t o depriving petitioner of the rfght t o any r e l i e f . In h i s f i r s t issue petitioner alleges the Youth Court erred in denying the assistance of available counsel t o him i n a predetention hearing. H e directs our attention t o one of the express purposes of the Montana Youth Court Act: " (4) t o provide judicial procedures i n which the parties are assured a f a i r hearing and recog- nition and enforcement of their constitutional and statutory rights." Section 10-1202(4), R.C.M. 1947. W e hold the facts of t h i s case do not demonstrate a violation of t h i s statute. I n i t i a l l y , there is considerable doubt as t o the status of William J. Miele, the Legal Services attorney, i n representing the youth a t the time he appeared during the progress of the hearing before the Youth Court judge. The affidavit of the youth probation officer indi- cates that upon taking the youth into custody, the youth stated that he was not represented by counsel i n response t o a question by the youth probation officer. The affidavit of M r . Miele indicates that on the day before the youth was taken into custody, the youth contacted him and asked him t o represent him i f criminal charges were f i l e d against him for possession of stolen property and "I told Eugene that I would do so i f he was unable t o obtain another attorney." (Emphasis added.) It appears from the affidavit of Daniel Love11 that he was the moving force behind securing M r . Miele's services i n representing the youth. While it is true there are other affidavits and statements that indicate M r . Miele was repre- senting the youth, they do no more than create some doubt as t o M r . Miele's status a t the time he entered the hearing then i n progress. Under the facts here, w e hold there was no proven violation of the Montana Youth Court Act. W e perceive no requirement i n the Act that a predetention hearing be held under a l l circum- stances. The Act simply requires the following circumstances t o e x i s t t o authorize detention: "A youth taken into custody s h a l l not be detained prior t o the hearing on the petition except when: h i s detention or care i s required t o protect the person or property of others or of the youth; he may abscond or be removed from the jurisdiction of the court; he has no parent, guardian, o r other person able t o provide supervision and care for him and return him t o the court when required; or an order for h i s detention has been made by the court pursuant t o t h i s act." Section 10-1212, R.C.M. 1947. These requirements were clearly met by information developed from the youth probation officer under oath and h i s written report t o the court followed by an order of the Youth Court for the youth's detention. The second issue for review is whether the Youth Court failed t o follow the statutory procedures and requirements of the Montana Youth Court Act in holding the youth i n detention over the weekend prior t o hearing the charges against him. Petitioner points out the declared purpose of the Youth Court Act is t o retain the youth in a family environment whenever possible, separating the youth from h i s parents only for the welfare of the youth or the safety and protection of the community. Section 10-1202(3), R.C.M. 1947. Petitioner also points out that t h i s Court has heretofore s e t out the following c r i t e r i a for separating a youth from h i s family enviranmnt: (1) necessary for the welfare of the youth, or (2) the safety or protection of the community. I n the Matter of Zip Geary, Mont . , 562 P.2d 821, 34 St.Rep. 218 (1977). I n our view, Geary is distinguishable and inapplicable on the basis that there, unlike here, the youth was being separated from h i s parents. Additionally, here the d i s t r i c t court made an express finding "there i s no home o r institution in which said youth can be temporarily detained pending further proceedings" and the youth probation officer ' s report indicated the youth, i n h i s opinion, might abscond i f not detained. In summary, we are of the opinion the Montana Youth Court Act does not require a judge t o hold a predetention hearing i n every case; that the judge did so here is a matter within h i s discretion. While it can be argued that the Youth Court judge should have listened t o Miele prior t o entry of the order for prehearing detention, it appears that i n view of M r . Miele's questionable status a s the youth's attorney the Youth Court judge was not compelled t o do so. The pre- detention hearing developed a strong factual basis for de- tention of the youth i n the juvenile f a c i l i t y in the Custer County j a i l under section 10-1212, R.C.M. 1947. W e hold the Youth Court judge did not violate the provisions of the Montana Youth Court Act i n ordering detention of the youth under the circumstances involved i n t h i s case. This opinion shall cats:: a declaratory judgment concerning the rights and remedies of the petitioner under the circumstances of t h i s case. W e Concur: - &ie f Jus ti Justices. Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea dissenting: As an abstract conclusion, I agree with the basic conclusion of the majority that the Youth Court is not required to give a youth a predetention hearing under all circumstances. But I cannot accept this conclusion applying to the facts of this case. In this case the Youth Court did hold a predetention hearing. However, it was devoid of those procedural rights which usually go with a hearing. In essence, all the Youth Court did was accept the affidavit of the probation officer and his testimony concerning the youth and used this as a basis for jailing the youth for a period of not to exceed five days pending further juvenile proceedings. The probation officer was not cross-examined, the youth was denied the right to have anyone testify in his behalf, and he was effectively denied the right to an attorney at the hearing. The effect of this Court's decision is two-fold. First, a Youth Court is not required to hold a hearing. Second, even if a Youth Court does hold a hear- ing, there are no procedural requirements to make it a meaningful hearing. Once the Youth Court judge chose to hold a predetention hearing, he committed himself, I believe, to holding a meaningful hearing. This would include the right of the youth to call wit- nesses in his behalf, to cross-examine witnesses, and to have a lawyer represent him. Concerning the right to an attorney, the majority opinion makes much of the fact that the status of Mr. Miele as the youth's attorney was in doubt. The majority states the youth told the pro- bation officer he did not have an attorney and that attorney Miele himself never directly represented to the court that he represented the Marten youth. If there was doubt, it was doubt caused by the probation officer and the court. The probation officer knew attorney Miele was involved in the case and could well be representing the Marten youth. While still in Forsyth (Rosebud County), attorney Miele called the proba- tion officer and told him he might be filing a habeas corpus petition in an attempt to get the youth released. Shortly thereafter, without notifying the attorney, the probation officer took the youth to Miles City (Custer County) some 45 miles from Forsyth. The probation officer might have had the best of intentions toward the youth in taking him to Miles City, but he should have notified the attorney of his intentions. When the attorney learned that the youth had been taken to Miles City, he was understandably concerned, and he, along with a social worker, immediately drove to Miles City. When they arrived they met an antagonistic judge and probation officer who had no intention of letting the attorney or social worker par- ticipate in the hearing. The record clearly shows the court was not interested in what attorney Miele or the social worker had to say concerning whether the Marten youth could safely be released from custody pending the filing of a juvenile delinquency petition. These peo- ple traveled more than 45 miles, absolutely to no avail. When attorney Miele asked to be heard the least the Youth Court could have done was to stop proceedings to allow a determina- tion of whether attorney Miele was authorized to and did in fact represent the Marten youth. Furthermore, the Youth Court could then also have been informed that the social worker was available to testify to the home situation of the Marten youth and that there was a home where the youth could stay pending further proceedings on a delinquency petition. Concerning the attitude of attorney Miele, this Court relies on the response filed in this Court to the youth's petition for a writ of supervisory control. I fail to see that it has any value in proving that Miele's attitude was wrong. The trial judge's statements in this regard show that any information he had concerning attorney Miele was hearsay evidence related to him through the pro- bation officers. While the record shows that attorney Miele and the probation officers have had previous confrontations, there is no way we can conclude that attorney Miele was in the wrong. Is it possible that the real problem is the attitude not of attorney Miele but that of the Youth Court and probation officer? Could it be that the court and probation officers would allow attorney Miele to represent youths only if he did it their way? In summary I do not feel that this Court should put its stamp of approval on the hearing that was conducted in this case.