Opinion ID: 891659
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Procedural Ramifications on Remand

Text: {51} This case presents a difficult problem on remand  unless, of course, the State decides not to pursue its case against Defendant, or, at trial, he is not adjudicated guilty of the charged offenses. Assuming the State pursues its case, Defendant will be 23 years old by the time this Opinion is filed, but the Children's Code requires that he be treated as a juvenile. See NMSA 1978, § 32A-1-8(A) (2009) (providing that the children's court has exclusive original jurisdiction over a person who is 18 years of age or older and was a child at the time the alleged act was committed). However, Defendant asks only that [t]his case . . . be remanded so that [Defendant] may withdraw his plea and the matter can properly proceed in children's court. The State does not offer an alternative to allowing Defendant to withdraw his plea other than its argument that the plea was valid. {52} At a minimum, our holding today requires us to invalidate that portion of the plea agreement requiring Defendant to be sentenced as an adult. On reflection, however, Defendant's entire plea must fall intact. See State v. Gibson, 96 N.M. 742, 743, 634 P.2d 1294, 1295 (Ct.App.1981) ([A] plea bargain stands or falls as a unit.). It would be unfair to the State to simply remand for an amenability hearing and re-sentencing when the State apparently dropped the two CSPM charges against Defendant in exchange for his agreement to be sentenced as an adult. To do so would allow Defendant to keep both the benefit of his original bargain and of our holding today. And it might be equally unfair to Defendant. We find it impossible to determine with any degree of confidence whether Defendant would have agreed to plead guilty had he been aware of his unconditional right to an amenability hearing. {53} Thus, we grant Defendant his requested relief to the extent that we remand this case to the children's court where the parties may proceed in light of the voided plea agreement. Cf. Jose S., 2007-NMCA-146, ¶ 22, 142 N.M. 829, 171 P.3d 768 (remanding a 21-year-old for sentencing under the Delinquency Act because the child asked for only a new sentencing hearing). Despite the apparent absurdity of re-trying Defendant at his age as a juvenile, we are hard-pressed to come up with an alternative. Furthermore, we would intrude on the exclusive domain of the Legislature if we were to interfere with the jurisdiction of the children's court. See N.M. Const. art. VI, § 13 (granting district courts such jurisdiction of special cases and proceedings as may be conferred by law); In re Santillanes, 47 N.M. at 148, 138 P.2d at 508 (holding that the conferring of jurisdiction of special cases and proceedings, such as juvenile proceedings, is at the disposal of the legislature). {54} As a matter of due process and fundamental fairness, Defendant should be returned as closely as possible to his rightful position: the position he was in before the trial court sentenced him as an adult without making a determination of whether he was amenable to treatment or rehabilitation. See State v. Vallejos, 1997-NMSC-040, ¶ 31, 123 N.M. 739, 945 P.2d 957 (The right to substantive due process embodies principles of fundamental fairness and entitles every individual to be free from arbitrary or oppressive government conduct.). At that time, Defendant presumptively was entitled to a disposition under the Delinquency Act  a disposition geared toward reform and reintegration into society, rather than one aimed at punishment and deterrence. This presumption of amenability to treatment or rehabilitation is the essence of our juvenile dispositional scheme. To offer Defendant less now would be unfair, despite the literal dictates of the Delinquency Act. {55} Therein lies the conundrum. To our knowledge, our juvenile system is not equipped to treat or rehabilitate an individual over the age of 21; nor is our adult criminal system likely equipped to provide the type of treatment or rehabilitative opportunities that are available to a juvenile. Defendant is in a sort of juvenile/criminal purgatory: he has rights as a juvenile and yet he may be too old to benefit from them. {56} What is worse, the legal system and the legislative scheme of the Delinquency Act bear much of the fault for his predicament. Defendant should have had an amenability determination over three years ago, before he served time in prison and before he lost the protections of the Delinquency Act. As a result, if adjudicated a youthful offender, Defendant deserves  at the very least  an open-minded inquiry into the availability of alternative facilities or treatments for young adults that might approximate those available under the Delinquency Act. Therefore, in the event the State successfully pursues its case against Defendant and reaches an amenability hearing on remand, we order the trial judge to consider evidence of (1) whether Defendant is amenable to treatment or rehabilitation at his age at the time of the hearing, and (2) whether any available facilities or sentencing alternatives exist in the adult corrections system for providing that treatment. {57} As our Court of Appeals noted nearly eight years ago, New Mexico desperately needs a legislative solution to the sentencing gaps created by the Delinquency Act and the criminal justice system. See Ira, 2002-NMCA-037, ¶¶ 25-32, 132 N.M. 8, 43 P.3d 359 (urging the Legislature to consider sentencing alternatives for juveniles and providing examples of the approaches of other jurisdictions); id. ¶¶ 50-55 (Bosson, C.J., specially concurring). Defendant's situation is not unique. See, e.g., Jose S., 2007-NMCA-146, ¶ 22, 142 N.M. 829, 171 P.3d 768 (noting that sentencing on remand is complicated by the fact that Child is too old to be sentenced as a juvenile because he is twenty-one). {58} Indeed, the Delinquency Act plainly anticipates a situation where, as here, a juvenile grown into adulthood must be tried as a child, yet remains presumptively eligible for treatment or rehabilitation. Application of Johnson, 178 F.Supp. 155, 164 (D.N.J. 1957) (holding that a Juvenile Court can properly exercise jurisdiction over individuals past the age of 18 but that the age relationship must be a reasonable one). However, such an individual has effectively aged out of the rehabilitative mechanisms available under the Delinquency Act. See § 32A-2-19 (providing that the children's court does not retain jurisdiction over delinquent offenders past the age of twenty-one). As a result, the accused may receive an adult sentence for an act that was committed at an age when the accused may have lacked the ability to appreciate the gravity or consequences of his actions. See Roper, 543 U.S. at 570, 125 S.Ct. 1183. Thus, the child loses any meaningful chance at treatment or rehabilitation on the one hand, and gets punished for an act potentially lacking the culpability required for an adult sentence. Such a result does not accomplish the ends of either the juvenile or adult justice systems. We urge the Legislature and any other interested groups to address this issue.