- 784 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

IN RE INTEREST OF JOSUE G.

Cite as 299 Neb. 784

In re Interest of Josue G., a c

under 18 years of ag

State of Nebraska, appellee, v.

Josue G., appellant

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed April 26, 2018. No. S-17-812.

1. Juvenile Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the record and reaches a conclusion independently 

of the juvenile court’s findings.

2. Juvenile Courts: Statutes: Jurisdiction. A juvenile court is a statutorily created court of limited and special jurisdiction, and it has only the 

authority which the statutes confer on it.

3. Juvenile Courts: Probation and Parole: Pleadings. Neb. Rev. Stat. 

§ 43-286(5) (Reissue 2016) authorizes a juvenile court to change an 

existing disposition of probation, but its power to do so is premised 

upon the existence of an appropriate motion and upon its compliance 

with the specified procedures.

4. Appeal and Error. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an 

analysis that is not necessary to adjudicate the case and controversy 

before it.

Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Douglas County: 

Elizabeth G. Crnkovich, Judge. Vacated and rema

Thomas C. Riley, Douglas County Public Defender, Ryan T. 

Locke, and Katie L. Jadlowski for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy,

JJ., and Derr and Urbom, District Judge

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

05/11/2018 09:09 AM CDT
- 785 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

IN RE INTEREST OF JOSUE G.

Cite as 299 Neb. 784

Cassel, J.

INTRODUCTION

After a juvenile on probation pursuant to a previous adjudication allegedly committed a new offense, the State moved to 

revoke probation. But when the juvenile entered a denial to the 

new charge, the State withdrew its motion. Nonetheless, the 

separate juvenile court of Douglas County extended the term of 

probation and imposed additional community service. Because 

the court did not follow applicable statutory procedures and 

thereby exceeded its statutory authority, we vacate the order, 

and remand the cause to the juvenile court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND

The juvenile court adjudicated Josue G. under Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 43-247(1) (Reissue 2016). On September 27, 2016, the 

court entered a dispositional order, placing Josue on probation 

for 4 months. Among other things, it ordered Josue to complete 

20 hours of community service.

On January 24, 2017, the State moved to revoke Josue’s 

probation based on alleged violations of probationary terms. 

The juvenile court found that the terms of Josue’s probation 

should not automatically terminate. A February 28 order stated 

that the State withdrew its motion to revoke probation and that 

the parties agreed Josue would abide by the court’s previous 

orders, except as therein modified. The court extended Josue’s 

probation for 6 months.

On May 11, 2017, the State again moved to revoke Josue’s 

probation. The motion alleged that Josue had incurred a new 

law violation, used marijuana, and failed to attend educational programming.

On July 5, 2017, the juvenile court held a hearing on the 

motion to revoke probation and an arraignment on a new 

charge. After Josue entered a denial to the new charge, the 

court asked how the State wished to proceed on its motion to 

revoke. The following colloquy occurred:
- 786 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

IN RE INTEREST OF JOSUE G.

Cite as 299 Neb. 784

[The State]: Your Honor, the State is going to withdraw 

its motion.

THE COURT: You are. Even though we have a new 

charge? You are not going to talk to [counsel for Josue] 

or anything? Huh.

All right. It is your right. Motion withdrawn.

What do you wish to do next then? Did you wish to 

have me review the matter?

[The State]: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I see. All right.

The court then heard from an individual associated with probation and ascertained that counsel for the parties agreed Josue 

should continue with his therapy. The court also engaged in a 

discussion with Josue during which it told him he needed to 

perform volunteer work.

On July 7, 2017, the juvenile court entered an order titled 

“Violation of Probation Hearing/Motion Is Withdrawn/Order.” 

After reciting that the motion to revoke probation was withdrawn, the order stated in part:

The Court finds that . . . Josue . . . must do community service until actively employed, AND IT IS SO 

ORDERED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that based on the filing 

of the Motion to Revoke Probation and additional charges 

pending pursuant to JV 17 892, the terms and conditions 

of probation shall not automatically terminate on August 

28, 2017 . . . .

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the previous orders 

of this Court remain in full force and effect, except as 

modified herein, AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the probation review 

hearing will be held on December 5, 2017 at 9:45 a.m.

unless application is made for a hearing prior thereto.

Josue filed a timely appeal, and we moved the case to 

our docket.1

1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3) (Supp. 2017).
- 787 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

IN RE INTEREST OF JOSUE G.

Cite as 299 Neb. 784

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Josue assigns that the juvenile court violated his due process 

rights by extending his probation and making further dispositional orders without a hearing.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] An appellate court reviews juvenile cases de novo on the 

record and reaches a conclusion independently of the juvenile 

court’s findings.2

ANALYSIS

[2] Josue argues that the juvenile court did not follow statutory procedures when it extended his probation and ordered 

community service. We first recall that a juvenile court is a 

statutorily created court of limited and special jurisdiction, and 

it has only the authority which the statutes confer on it.3 Thus, 

we look to the authority conferred by statute. Josue relies upon 

a specific statute, and because the State did not file a brief in 

this appeal, there is no suggestion that any other statute authorized the juvenile court’s order.

[3] Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-286(5) (Reissue 2016) authorizes a 

juvenile court to change an existing disposition of probation, 

but its power to do so is premised upon the existence of an 

appropriate motion and upon its compliance with the specified 

procedures. We have previously emphasized the importance 

of complying with the procedures under § 43-286(5), because 

a juvenile is entitled to procedural protections, including the 

right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.4

Section 43-286(5)(b) provides:

When a juvenile is placed on probation or under the 

supervision of the court for conduct under subdivision 

(1), (2), (3)(b), or (4) of section 43-247 and it is alleged 

2 In re Interest of Dana H., ante p. 197, 907 N.W.2d 730 (2018).

3 See In re Interest of Enyce J. & Eternity M., 291 Neb. 965, 870 N.W.2d 

413 (2015).

4 See In re Interest of Alan L., 294 Neb. 261, 882 N.W.2d 682 (2016).
- 788 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

IN RE INTEREST OF JOSUE G.

Cite as 299 Neb. 784

that the juvenile has violated a term of probation or supervision or that the juvenile has violated an order of the 

court, a motion to revoke probation or supervision or to 

change the disposition may be filed and proceedings held

as follows:

(i) The motion shall set forth specific factual allegations of the alleged violations and a copy of such motion 

shall be served on all persons required to be served by 

sections 43-262 to 43-267;

(ii) The juvenile shall be entitled to a hearing before 

the court to determine the validity of the allegations. At 

such hearing the juvenile shall be entitled to those rights 

relating to counsel provided by section 43-272 and those 

rights relating to detention provided by sections 43-254 

to 43-256. The juvenile shall also be entitled to speak and 

present documents, witnesses, or other evidence on his or 

her own behalf. He or she may confront persons who have 

given adverse information concerning the alleged violations, may cross-examine such persons, and may show 

that he or she did not violate the conditions of his or her 

probation or supervision or an order of the court or, if 

he or she did, that mitigating circumstances suggest that 

the violation does not warrant revocation of probation 

or supervision or a change of disposition. The hearing 

shall be held within a reasonable time after the juvenile 

is taken into custody;

(iii) [authorizing hearing to be conducted in an informal manner];

(iv) [providing for a preliminary hearing when the 

juvenile is confined, detained, or otherwise significantly 

deprived of his or her liberty];

(v) If the juvenile is found by the court to have violated 

the terms of his or her probation or supervision or an 

order of the court, the court may modify the terms and 

conditions of the probation, supervision, or other court 

order, extend the period of probation, supervision, or 

other court order, or enter any order of disposition that 
- 789 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

IN RE INTEREST OF JOSUE G.

Cite as 299 Neb. 784

could have been made at the time the original order was 

entered; and

(vi) In cases when the court revokes probation, supervision, or other court order, it shall enter a written 

statement as to the evidence relied on and the reasons 

for revocation.

(Emphasis supplied.)

Under § 43-286(5)(b), a juvenile’s disposition may not 

be changed in the absence of a motion to revoke probation 

or supervision or to change the disposition. Although the 

State filed such a motion, it withdrew the motion before it 

was heard. Thus, there was no hearing as contemplated in 

§ 43-286(5)(b)(ii) to establish whether Josue violated a term of 

his probation, supervision, or court order. And without such a 

hearing, there could be no finding by the juvenile court under 

§ 43-286(5)(b)(v) that Josue violated a term of his probation or an order of the court. Because there was no motion to 

revoke probation, the juvenile court lacked authority to extend 

Josue’s probation and order that he engage in community service until employed.

For the sake of completeness, we note that § 43-286 was 

amended with an effective date of August 24, 2017.5 However, 

the amendments do not diminish the statutory prerequisites 

to a juvenile court’s authority to modify the terms and conditions of probation, extend the period of probation, or enter a 

different order of disposition. And we are aware that another 

statute was amended, with the same effective date, to authorize a juvenile court at any time during probation to “reduce 

or eliminate any of the conditions imposed on the juvenile.”6

But, obviously, that provision does not authorize an extension of the length of probation or an increase in the terms 

of probation.

The conclusion that the statutory procedure in § 43-286 

must be followed in order to change the terms of a juvenile’s 

5 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-286 (Supp. 2017).

6 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-286.01(10) (Supp. 2017).
- 790 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

299 Nebraska Report

IN RE INTEREST OF JOSUE G.

Cite as 299 Neb. 784

existing disposition is amply supported by case law.7 The 

Nebraska Court of Appeals recently discussed this case law 

in detail,8 and we need not repeat that discussion here. Suffice 

it to say, both this court and the Court of Appeals have held 

that once a court has entered a disposition, it is plain error to 

change that disposition in the absence of compliance with the 

applicable statutory procedures.9

Because the juvenile court changed the preexisting disposition in the absence of an appropriate motion and without complying with the applicable statutory procedures, it exceeded its 

authority. We vacate the juvenile court’s July 7, 2017, order.

[4] Josue also argues that the juvenile court violated his 

due process rights. We do not reach this argument. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not 

necessary to adjudicate the case and controversy before it.10 As 

discussed above, the court changed Josue’s dispositional order 

in the absence of a motion and without a hearing to determine 

whether Josue violated a term of his probation or court order. 

Because the juvenile court exceeded its statutory authority, no 

further analysis is needed.

CONCLUSION

Because the juvenile court exceeded its statutory authority in changing the terms of Josue’s probation, we vacate the 

juvenile court’s July 7, 2017, order and remand the cause 

to the juvenile court for further proceedings consistent with 

this opinion.

Vacated and reman

7 See, In re Interest of Alan L., supra note 4; In re Interest of Markice M., 

275 Neb. 908, 750 N.W.2d 345 (2008); In re Interest of Iyana P., 25 Neb. 

App. 439, 907 N.W.2d 333 (2018); In re Interest of Torrey B., 6 Neb. App. 

658, 577 N.W.2d 310 (1998).

8 In re Interest of Iyana P., supra note 7.

9 See, In re Interest of Markice M., supra note 7; In re Interest of Torrey B., 

supra note 7.

10 In re Interest of Carmelo G., 296 Neb. 805, 896 N.W.2d 902 (2017).