Court Opinion

ID: 9895620
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 23:08:20.081766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:40.188829
License: Public Domain

11/07/2023

                                          DA 22-0089
                                                                                          Case Number: DA 22-0089

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                          2023 MT 210

STATE OF MONTANA,

               Plaintiff and Appellee,

         v.

H.R.,

               Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM:           District Court of the First Judicial District,
                       In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. CDJ-2020-23
                       Honorable Kathy Seeley, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

                For Appellant:

                       Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Jeff N. Wilson, Assistant Appellate
                       Defender, Helena, Montana

                For Appellee:

                       Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Bjorn Boyer, Assistant
                       Attorney General, Helena, Montana

                       Kevin Downs, Lewis and Clark County Attorney, Josh Nemeth, Deputy
                       County Attorney, Helena, Montana

                                                   Submitted on Briefs: September 20, 2023

                                                               Decided: November 7, 2023

Filed:

                       __________________________________________
                                         Clerk
Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1     H.R. appeals the Judgment and Order and the Order Transferring Jurisdiction to

District Court and Supervisory Responsibility to Adult Probation and Parole executed by

the First Judicial District Youth Court, Lewis and Clark County, on December 29, 2021.

The Judgment and Order (1) transferred jurisdiction from youth court to district court,

(2) transferred supervisory responsibility from youth probation services to adult probation

services until H.R. reached age 23, (3) committed H.R. to the Department of Corrections

(DOC) until age 23 with placement at the Missoula Assessment and Sanction Center

(MASC) for sufficient time to complete sex offender treatment, followed by placement in

a pre-release center, and (4) required H.R. to register as a Tier 1 sexual offender until age

23.

¶2     We restate the issue on appeal as follows:

       Did the Youth Court exceed its authority under § 41-5-208, MCA, when it imposed
       a Department of Corrections commitment, added two years of supervision to the
       disposition, and required H.R. to register as a sex offender?

¶3     We reverse and remand to the Youth Court for action consistent with this opinion.

                 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶4     H.R. is a youth who, at the age of 16, was deemed a delinquent youth by the Youth

Court for committing four counts of felony sexual intercourse without consent, the first

occurring on April 17, 2020, the other three occurring on April 18, 2020.

¶5     H.R. admitted the offenses, and on January 11, 2021, the Youth Court placed H.R.

on probation for two years. The Youth Court also determined H.R. was a Tier 1 sexual
                                             2
offender and did not require him to register as a sexual offender. The Youth Court ordered

H.R. to complete sexual offender treatment, abstain from use of drugs and alcohol, remain

gainfully employed, not possess pornographic material, not possess a cell phone, and not

access any social media sites.

¶6     On May 12, 2021, the State petitioned to revoke H.R.’s probation alleging a myriad

of violations. H.R. admitted the violations, and the Youth Court granted the State’s petition

to revoke. Upon disposition, the Youth Court committed H.R. to the DOC for placement

in Pine Hills until age 18 or sooner released with probation extending to age 21. Two

months after turning 17, H.R. entered Pine Hills.

¶7     Upon turning 18, H.R. was released from Pine Hills on October 11, 2021. The State

then sought to transfer jurisdiction from Youth Court to District Court and to order the

supervisory responsibility to transfer from juvenile probation services to adult probation

services pursuant to § 41-5-208, MCA. On December 29, 2021, the Youth Court held a

transfer hearing pursuant to § 41-5-208, MCA. At the outset of the hearing, the State

advised the Youth Court H.R. was waiving his transfer to the District Court but contention

remained regarding the State’s recommendation. Despite H.R.’s waiver and consent to the

requested transfer to District Court and adult supervision, the Youth Court requested

testimony of H.R.’s youth probation officer and of adult probation and parole. As such,

the State presented testimony from Jonathan Flynn, a deputy juvenile probation officer,

and Trevor Newman, an adult probation officer. Jonathan Flynn, H.R.’s youth probation

officer, testified about H.R.’s past behavior. He also testified about H.R.’s behaviors that
                                             3
had caused the State to originally seek the revocation which resulted in H.R.’s placement

at Pine Hills. Flynn also testified to H.R.’s lack of meaningful engagement while at Pine

Hills and upon his release therefrom. Trevor Newman testified about the DOC’s sexual

offender treatment program, and his beliefs that it would take three years to complete, and

that H.R. would be more likely to succeed in sexual offender treatment in a custodial

placement where he would be free from drugs and alcohol.

¶8     At the conclusion of the hearing, the Youth Court transferred jurisdiction to the

district court and supervisory responsibility to adult probation. The Youth Court also

committed H.R. to the DOC extending his supervision an additional two years until he

turned 23 on October 12, 2026, with initial placement at MASC, and added the condition

that H.R. register as a Tier 1 sexual offender until he turned 23. H.R. argued against

extending his disposition to the age of 23, asserting it should be kept at age 21, as was

initially set by the court. H.R. also argued against a DOC commitment, stating that

although he may have had issues on youth probation, he understood as an adult now he

could not continue to refuse the conditions which were imposed upon him. Finally, as to

the sexual offender registration, H.R. argued that requiring sexual offender registration was

punitive in nature because he was not required to register before, and he had not committed

any additional sexual offenses.

                               STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶9     We review a youth court’s interpretation and application of the Montana Youth

Court Act de novo for correctness. In re D.A.T., 2022 MT 174, ¶ 7, 410 Mont. 1, 517 P.3d

                                             4
157. When construing a legislative act, it must be read as a whole, and no term should be

isolated from the context of the statute. Eldorado Coop Canal Co. v. Hoge, 2016 MT 145,

¶ 18, 383 Mont. 523, 373 P.3d 836. The Legislature’s intent is determined from the plain

language of the statute. In re J.J., 2018 MT 184, ¶ 13, 392 Mont. 192, 422 P.3d 699. “If

the intent can be determined from the plain language of a statute, a court ‘may not go

further and apply any other means of interpretation.’” In re J.J., ¶ 13 (internal citation

omitted).

                                      DISCUSSION

¶10    Did the Youth Court exceed its authority under § 41-5-208, MCA, when it imposed
       a Department of Corrections commitment, added two years of supervision to the
       disposition, and required H.R. to register as a sex offender?

¶11    As a preliminary matter, the State argues H.R. did not preserve the issue for direct

appeal by objecting to it below. The State alleges H.R. asked for leniency in the extension

of the disposition instead of objecting to the Youth Court’s new impositions. However,

based on the rule in Lenihan, the Court may review a final disposition that is alleged to be

illegal or in excess of statutory mandates, even when the defendant failed to preserve the

issue in the trial court. State v. Lenihan, 184 Mont. 338, 343, 602 P.2d 997 (1979).

Additionally, this Court has applied the Lenihan rule in review of a youth court’s

disposition. See In re K.J.R., 2017 MT 45, ¶ 16, 386 Mont. 381, 391 P.3d 71 (determining

the case qualified for review on appeal despite no objection in the lower court when the

youth claimed the Youth Court unlawfully revoked his prior disposition and, thus, lacked

authority to commit him to Pine Hills). Here, although H.R. did not specifically object to
                                             5
the Youth Court’s use of § 41-5-208, MCA, to revoke his prior disposition during his

transfer hearing, he does allege on appeal it was an illegal use of the statute to impose

additional disposition requirements or a new disposition during a jurisdiction transfer.

Therefore, we conclude the claim qualifies for review on appeal.

¶12    Moving to the merits, H.R. argues § 41-5-208, MCA, only gives the Youth Court

authority to transfer jurisdiction over a youth from the Youth Court to the district court and

transfer supervisory responsibilities from juvenile probation services to adult probation

services. H.R. asserts the statute does not give the Youth Court the authority to impose a

new DOC commitment, extend the period of State supervision, nor require the condition

of sexual offender registration not contained in H.R.’s prior disposition. H.R. further

alleges the Youth Court conducted the transfer hearing as if it were a probation revocation

hearing, and by doing so, the court violated his due process rights.

¶13    The State argues the DOC commitment and registration requirement were consistent

with ensuring H.R. complied with his original disposition. The State also argues that even

if the Youth Court committed error, it was harmless. The State claims that had H.R. merely

been taken into custody before the hearing, the Youth Court could have committed H.R. to

the DOC under § 41-5-208(5), MCA. Thus, according to the State, the fact it did not take

H.R. into custody prior to the hearing only benefited him, and any error committed by the

Youth Court was harmless.

¶14    Section 41-5-208, MCA, provides for the transfer of jurisdiction to district court and

transfer of supervisory responsibility to adult probation after a youth court’s disposition
                                              6
made pursuant to §§ 41-5-1512 or 41-5-1513. In re A.D.T., 2015 MT 178, ¶ 12, 379 Mont.

452, 351 P.3d 682. The purpose of the transfer is to make sure there is continued

compliance with the youth court’s disposition after the youth turns 18 years old. In re

A.D.T., ¶ 12.

¶15    Specifically, the language of § 41-5-208(1), MCA, states “the court may, on the

youth’s motion or the motion of the county attorney, transfer jurisdiction to the district

court and order the transfer of supervisory responsibility from juvenile probation services

to adult probation services” to ensure continued compliance with the court’s disposition.

Section 41-5-208(2), MCA, requires a hearing on whether the transfer should be made, and

§ 41-5-208(3), MCA, provides the Youth Court shall transfer the case to district court if

the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that transfer is appropriate.

¶16    Section 41-5-208(4), MCA, provides that if a youth whose case has been transferred

to the district court violates conditions of a previously imposed disposition, the district

court may impose conditions as provided under §§ 46-18-201 through 46-18-203, only

after a hearing. In re A.D.T., ¶ 13. Section 41-5-208(5), MCA, permits the district court

to incarcerate a transferred youth who is 18 years old in an adult correctional facility only

if the youth was incarcerated for a felony offense at the time of transfer.          Finally,

§ 41-5-208(6), MCA, provides the district court’s jurisdiction under this statute terminates

when the youth reaches age 25.

¶17    Here, in response to the State’s request to transfer, the Youth Court appropriately

held a hearing under § 41-5-208, MCA, to consider the transfer of jurisdiction over H.R.
                                             7
to the district court and the transfer of supervisory responsibilities to adult probation

services. Upon conclusion of the transfer hearing, in addition to transferring jurisdiction

to the district court and supervisory responsibilities to adult probation services, the Youth

Court added two years of state supervision to H.R.’s prior disposition imposing a DOC

commitment until H.R. was 23 with placement at MASC for sufficient time to complete

required sex offender treatment, followed by placement in a pre-release center,1 and added

a registration requirement not contained in his prior disposition—register as a Tier 1 sexual

offender until age 23.

¶18    The plain language of § 41-5-208, MCA, provides authority for a youth court to

transfer jurisdiction to a district court, order the transfer of supervisory responsibility from

juvenile probation services to adult probation services and, if incarcerated at the time of

transfer, permit the continued incarceration of the transferred youth but in an adult

correctional facility. The statute does not grant authority to modify an existing disposition

or issue a new disposition which, includes adding a DOC commitment for an additional

two years. It does not grant the Youth Court authority without pleading and proving

violation of a disposition to impose additional conditions, such as sexual offender

registration. Further, it does not permit the transfer hearing to be treated as a revocation

hearing when no petition for revocation has been brought.

1
  Resulting in H.R.’s immediate incarceration in an adult correctional facility, despite the
requirements of § 41-5-208(5), MCA, specifically precluding incarceration as H.R. was not
incarcerated at the time of the transfer hearing.

                                               8
¶19    Although the State’s petition to transfer jurisdiction alleged H.R. violated his prior

disposition, it did not allege any specific probation violations as required by § 41-5-1431,

MCA.2 The petition to transfer did not request to add conditions or revoke H.R.’s

disposition and impose a new one. The State also did not file a new petition for revocation

consistent with requirements of § 41-5-1431, MCA, in conjunction with its transfer

request. The Youth Court did not give H.R. notice that it was proceeding on anything other

than the transfer issue. As such, it was error for the Youth Court to treat the transfer hearing

like a probation revocation hearing.

¶20    The State asserts, however, that even if the Youth Court erred by not following the

correct procedure, such error was harmless.           We do not agree.        Despite that under

§ 41-5-208, MCA, there was no mechanism for incarcerating H.R. or extending the

duration of his supervision, at the conclusion of the hearing, H.R. was incarcerated and his

State supervision was extended an additional two years. H.R.’s liberty and privacy rights

were substantially harmed such that the District’s Court error in treating the transfer

hearing as a revocation hearing was not harmless error.

2
  Section 41-5-1431, MCA, sets forth the statutory process for accomplishing a youth probation
revocation when a youth violates terms of his/her probation. A petition for revocation must be
filed stating “the terms of probation alleged to have been violated and the factual basis for the
allegations.” Section 41-5-1431(2), MCA. The standard of proof is the same used in probation
revocation of an adult, and in all other respects, proceedings “are governed by the procedures,
rights, and duties applicable to proceedings on petitions alleging that the youth is delinquent or a
youth in need of intervention.” Section 41-5-1431(3), MCA. As such, the youth court must hold
a hearing on the petition for revocation. If the court finds the youth violated a term of probation,
the court may revoke the prior disposition and “may make any judgment of disposition that could
have been made in the original case.” Section 41-5-1431(3), MCA.

                                                 9
¶21    As H.R. was not incarcerated at the time of the transfer hearing, under the request

to transfer made in this case, anything other than a jurisdictional transfer to district court

with transfer of supervisory authority from juvenile probation services to adult probation

services was outside the youth court’s authority under § 41-5-208, MCA, and must be

reversed.

                                      CONCLUSION

¶22    We find the Youth Court exceeded the bounds of its authority under a § 41-5-208,

MCA, transfer because it imposed a new disposition on H.R. in addition to the transfer of

jurisdiction and supervision agency. Such a new disposition was not available under

§ 41-5-208, MCA. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the Youth Court to amend its

Judgment and Order to strike the added DOC commitment, the extended supervision

period, and the sexual offender registration requirement.

                                                  /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON

We concur:

/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
/S/ JIM RICE

                                             10