Court Opinion

ID: 9786149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:48:47.732595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:51.586240
License: Public Domain

KENNEDY, Judge (concurring in part, dissenting in part). {22} I agree with the majority that it is illegal to sentence Defendant as an adult for offenses that are not adult offenses. My concern is with the remedy we suggest. I disagree that Defendant should be allowed to waive what I perceive to be the lack of jurisdiction over remaining delinquent offenses in district court. When district court acquires jurisdiction under the Children’s Code to hear delinquent offenses it sits as a children’s court. I believe children’s court has exclusive jurisdiction over the remaining offenses once Defendant is no longer charged with crimes that eonfer youthful offender status for adult sentencing in district court. Thus, I agree with every part of the opinion except the suggestion that upon remand to district court Defendant has the option of waiving his status and accepting an adult sentence. To the extent the majority’s decision would allow a waiver by Defendant of status as a delinquent offender, I respectfully dissent. {23} A party to a case cannot agree to jurisdiction where none exists. See, e.g., Duran v. Transit Remanufacturing Corp., 73 N.M. 139, 141, 386 P.2d 237, 238 (1963). A person may not be punished for a crime without a sufficient charge even if he voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court. See Smith v. Abram, 58 N.M. 404, 410, 271 P.2d 1010, 1015 (1954). “[W]here a defendant is not charged with a public offense, proceedings after a plea to that non-charge does [sic] not place a defendant in jeopardy.” State v. Mabrey, 88 N.M. 227, 229, 539 P.2d 617, 619 (Ct.App.1975) (citing State v. Ferguson, 56 N.M. 398, 244 P.2d 783 (1952); State v. Ardovino, 55 N.M. 161, 228 P.2d 947 (1951); State v. Valdez, 51 N.M. 393, 185 P.2d 977 (1947)). Similarly, agreeing to be sentenced as an adult for a crime specifically defined as a delinquent act should be of no effect. The majority holds here that “in the absence of a valid waiver by the juvenile,” the Legislature is who confers the power to treat a child as an adult for sentencing purposes. I agree. The Legislature has provided a statute that deals with the disposition of delinquent acts under the Children’s Code in a situation such as this: Section 32A-2-6. Transfer of Jurisdiction over Child from other Tribunals to Court If it appears to a tribunal in a criminal matter that the defendant was under the age of eighteen years at the time the offense charged was alleged to have been committed and the offense charged is a delinquent act pursuant to the provisions of the Delinquency Act [this article], the tribunal shall promptly transfer jurisdiction of the matter and the defendant to the [Children’s ] court together with a copy of the accusatory pleading and other papers, documents and transcripts of testimony relating to the ease. NMSA 1978, § 32A-2-6(A) (1993) [Emphasis added]. {24} I concur that the offenses of which Defendant stands convicted are illegally sentenced as adult offenses because Defendant was not an adult when he committed them. See § 32A-1-4(B) (defining “child”); Majority Opinion, ¶ 14. The problem is one of subject matter jurisdiction. “The [district] court has exclusive original jurisdiction of all proceedings under the Children’s Code [this chapter] in which a person is eighteen years of age or older and was a child at the time the alleged act in question was committed or is a child alleged to be: (1) a delinquent child.” Section 32A-1-8(A)(1). {25} I also concur that the charge that conferred youthful offender status was no longer before the court for its consideration (as it was dismissed in the plea), and that the charges to which Defendant pled do not in and of themselves confer adult status. We called a sentence on those charges illegal because of our disinclination to extend Montano. See Majority Opinion, ¶ 14. Allowing a child to include a crime in those enumerated by Section 32A-2-3(H) or (I) (youthful offender status) by stipulation is not a legal solution to the problem this ease presents. We do not know if the ease was pled from first degree murder to delinquent offenses because the State had no case or for other reasons. It is not our place to guess. We should limit our opinion to righting the wrong, not fashioning a doctrine allowing waivers of jurisdiction to solve a tactical problem. {26} A district court can only sentence a child as an adult based on the child’s consent when two things occur — first, the child must occupy the statutory legal class of ‘youthful offender’ or ‘serious youthful offender,’ and second, the child must waive the provisions of Section 32A-2-20(B) that otherwise require the children’s court to hold a dispositional hearing and find the child is not amenable to treatment or rehabilitation in available facilities. See State v. Timothy T., 1998-NMCA-053, ¶ 4, 125 N.M. 96, 957 P.2d 525. The first of these conditions is not satisfied here. {27} Montano hung its hat on the fact that the defendant was convicted and sentenced on offenses that rendered him a youthful offender. This enabled the sentencing court to sentence him as an adult for all the other offenses to which he pled. See State v. Montano, 120 N.M. 218, 219, 900 P.2d 967, 968 (Ct.App.1995) (“[A]ny juvenile who is adjudicated for any of the offenses under Section 32A-2-d(I) [is] subject to adult sanctions under Section 32A-2-20 for any offense in the same case.”). The court in State v. Jonathan B. had jurisdiction as conferred by statute in this fashion over all the charges to be sentenced. See 1998-NMSC-003, ¶ 15, 124 N.M. 620, 954 P.2d 52. In other words, the youthful offender charge still remained to be considered in the case, and it alone conferred the power to sentence on the other charges; that is not the case here. {28} We should not allow jurisdiction to be created by a plea bargain. Where the adult status of the charges is established, the district court may act, but this case lacks that element. We should allow the withdrawal of the plea, but should not suggest that waiving one’s status as a child under the Children’s Code is an option. {29} Based on the foregoing, I do not agree that just because the parties contemplated an adult sentence, that agreement should be given effect if it is not proper to do so. Gibson stands for the proposition that the entire plea agreement is out the window. See 96 N.M. 742, 743, 634 P.2d 1294, 1295 (Ct.App.1981). I believe reversing the conviction, invalidating the plea agreement, and remanding for proceedings consistent with law is as far as this Court should have gone.