Opinion ID: 1163198
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: duty to inform

Text: In 1993, K.S.A. 38-1633 of the Juvenile Offenders Code provided in part: (b) When the respondent appears with an attorney in response to a complaint, the court shall require the respondent to admit or deny the allegations stated in the complaint or plead nolo contendere, unless there is an application for and approval of a diversion program. Prior to making this requirement, the court shall inform the respondent of the following: (1) the nature of the charges in the complaint; (2) the right of the respondent to be presumed innocent of each charge; (3) the right to trial without unnecessary delay and to confront and cross-examine witnesses appearing in support of the allegations of the complaint; (4) the right to subpoena witnesses; (5) the right of the respondent to testify or to decline to testify; and (6) the dispositional alternatives the court may select as the result of an adjudication. J.C. asserts that this court should interpret the phrase nature of the charges in K.S.A. 38-1633(b) to require an explanation of whether an offense would be misdemeanor or a felony for adult sentencing purposes. J.C. argues that the judge's failure to explain that the charge to which he stipulated would be a felony if he were an adult requires that the prior 1993 adjudication be set aside. J.C.'s argument, raised 1½ years later and only after he had been charged with another felony, is unpersuasive. The record supports the State's position that J.C. was fully informed of the nature of the charge and the possible dispositions for a juvenile and that the charge would have been a felony for an adult. There is no merit to this claim.