Case Title: In re MATTER OF INTEREST OF BW

Citation: 

Docket Number: C-99-9

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2000-10-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re MATTER OF INTEREST OF BW2000 WY 18812 P.3d 675Case Number: C-99-9Decided: 10/10/2000Supreme Court of Wyoming

IN THE 
MATTER OF THE INTEREST OF BW, a minor child: BW, Appellant

(Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

 

                                

 

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County The 
Honorable John C.

Brackley, Judge

 

   Representing 
Appellant:

    
Sylvia Lee Hackl, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate 
Counsel; Ryan R. Roden, Assistant Appellate Counsel.  Argument by Mr. 
Roden.

  Representing 
Appellee:

    
Gay Woodhouse, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney 
General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; T. Alan Elrod, 
Assistant Attorney General.  
Argument by Mr. Elrod.

 

   Before LEHMAN, C.J., and 
THOMAS, GOLDEN, HILL, and KITE, JJ.

 

   GOLDEN, 
Justice.

[¶1]         The dispositive issue in this case 
is whether Appellant BW has timely appealed an order of restitution entered 
three years earlier when he was adjudged a delinquent juvenile and sent to 
Wyoming Boys School.  At the time of 
the initial proceedings, the juvenile court ordered restitution in an amount to 
be determined at a later time after the victim of BW's sexual assault had 
received counseling and medical care.  
BW did not appeal that order. 
Three years later, when the victim petitioned the court to set an amount, the 
district court ordered BW to pay $2,595.00 in restitution to his victim of 
sexual assault. BW now appeals contending that the pertinent statute does not allow the 
district court to delay setting restitution.  Appellee State contends that BW's appeal 
is untimely and this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the 
issue.

 

 [¶2]        We agree with the State that the 
appeal is untimely and dismiss the appeal for lack of 
jurisdiction.

 

                                    
ISSUES

 

 [¶3]     BW presents this issue 
for our review:

 

            
Whether the district court erred when it ordered appellant to pay 
restitution to the victim's family three years after appellant was sentenced, when the 
court did not order appellant to pay restitution at the time of sentencing and the court did not fix a 
reasonable amount at the time of sentencing?

 

 [¶4]     The State presents this 
statement of the issues:

 

            
I.  Must appellant's untimely 
filed appeal be dismissed for lack of this Court's jurisdiction 
to hear and decide his 
issues?

 

            
II.  Did the district court 
abuse its discretion when it ordered restitution three years after appellant 
was adjudged delinquent, when the 
juvenile justice act does not have the same requirements as 
the inapplicable adult restitution 
statutes?

 

                                     
FACTS

 

 [¶5]       On April 3, 1996, BW admitted to sexual 
assault in the second degree in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
6-2-303(a)(v).  The court adjudged 
him a delinquent child and ordered a predisposition study in accordance with 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-6-227.  After 
receiving the predisposition study report, the court entered a dispositional 
order that placed BW in the Wyoming Boys School and stated that the victim's 
family could petition the court for restitution incurred for medical costs or 
counseling resulting from the sexual assault admitted to by the juvenile.  BW did not appeal this 
order.

 

[¶6]         Three years later, on June 16, 
1999, the victim's family petitioned for restitution for medical care and 
counseling costs resulting from the assault.  After hearing, the court ordered BW to 
pay $2,595.00 in restitution.  This appeal 
followed.

 

                                  
DISCUSSION

 

[¶7]         To invoke appellate jurisdiction, 
appeals must be filed no later than thirty days after the district court enters 
its final order.  W.R.A.P. 
2.01.  The timely filing of a notice 
of appeal is jurisdictional.  
Holmquist v. State, 902 P.2d 217 
(Wyo. 1995).  "A late filing of an 
appeal results in an incurable jurisdictional defect, leaving this Court with no 
authority to resolve the case."  Id. 
at 217-18.

 

[¶8]         In criminal cases not involving 
the juvenile act, we frequently have considered the merits of the case even 
though the notice of appeal was not timely filed.  We usually do so to avoid a later claim 
of ineffective assistance of counsel 
under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 
reh'g denied, 467 U.S. 1267 (1984).  
Holmquist, 902 P.2d  at 218.  
Although juveniles are entitled to effective assistance of counsel, proceedings in juvenile court 
are equitable as opposed to being criminal.  In Interest of LDO, 858 P.2d 553, 556 
(Wyo. 1993); In Matter of ALJ, 836 P.2d 307, 313 (Wyo. 1992).  "[A] juvenile delinquency determination is a special proceeding, 
not a traditional criminal proceeding." In Interest of N.J.C, 913 P.2d 435, 437 
(Wyo. 1996) (citing State in Interest of C, 638 P.2d 165, 168 (Wyo. 1981)).  In this case, BW admitted that he had committed the sexual 
assault and was adjudged delinquent.  
In the dispositional phase, the court entered an open-ended restitution 
order from which no appeal was taken.  
In a juvenile proceeding after 
adjudication of delinquency, the nature of the dispositional proceedings is not 
criminal and does not raise a potential ineffective-assistance-of-attorney 
claim, and we, therefore, have no jurisdiction to hear an untimely 
appeal.

 

[¶9]        We dismiss the appeal for lack of 
jurisdiction.