Opinion ID: 2401854
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: D.C. Youth Act

Text: With respect to the Youth Act, the trial court stated that it found jurisdiction under D.C.Code § 24-905(a)(1) (2001), which allows a sentencing judge to review DOC determinations that a youth offender will derive no further benefit from treatment under the Act. [11] Although there was no formal no further benefit finding by the BOP, the trial court held that it had jurisdiction under this provision because the BOP had made a de facto no further benefit finding. The trial court reasoned that, because the BOP ignore[d] Mr. Crockett's youth status, the BOP had made a de facto finding that Crockett would derive no further benefit from those services. Based on this and its other findings of jurisdiction, the trial court ordered the BOP to house Crockett only with other Youth Act offenders and to provide special learning needs testing and evaluation as well as develop an individualized rehabilitative treatment plan for Crockett. Because we find that the plain language of the Youth Act does not authorize the trial court to order the BOP to provide services to an offender after he is sentenced, we conclude the trial court erred in exercising jurisdiction under the Act. The Youth Act sets forth the conditions under which the trial court may sentence an offender it believes would benefit from treatment and supervision under the Act. See D.C.Code § 24-903 (2001). The Youth Act allows the trial court to sentence those eligible individuals [12] who commit an offense punishable by imprisonment to Youth Act treatment and supervision up to the maximum penalty of imprisonment otherwise provided by law. See § 24-903(b). If the trial court chooses to sentence an offender under the Act, it must make a statement on the record setting forth the reasons why it believes that the offender will derive benefit from treatment under the Act. See § 24-903(c). After an offender is sentenced, the trial court retains certain very limited authority over the case. Specifically, under Section 24-905, the trial court may review DOC, and arguably BOP, determinations that the offender will derive no further benefit from treatment under the Act. The trial court may affirm or reverse the DOC finding, thus either allowing the Youth Act offender to continue his treatment under the Act or authorizing his transfer to an adult facility or his transfer to the prison's general population. Apart from the trial court's review of no further benefit findings, however, the Act does not grant the trial court any further authority with respect to Youth Act offenders. [13] Even in its review of no further benefit findings, there is nothing in the Act or our case law which gives the court jurisdiction to order the jailor to provide the offender specific services. For these reasons, we find that the trial court erred in finding that it had jurisdiction to order the BOP to provide Crockett particular treatment modalities under the Youth Act.