Court Opinion

ID: 9847882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:09:12.216779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:42.771424
License: Public Domain

Pope, Judge,
concurring specially.
While I agree with the majority that the judgment of the juvenile court committing appellant to the custody of the Department of Human Resources should be reversed, I base my decision upon narrower grounds. My examination of the record reveals appellant to have had considerable experience in the juvenile justice system. At the time of the October 15, 1985 hearing at issue, appellant was almost sixteen years old. Between April 15, 1983 and the hearing, appellant’s record contains no less than five incidents of delinquency or unruliness, such as running away, possession of alcohol by a minor, criminal damage to property in the second degree and violations of probation by violating curfew and school rules, apparently by truancy. Based upon these prior encounters with the juvenile court authorities, I feel safe in concluding that appellant and her mother have acquired more than a casual or passing acquaintance with the procedures of *400the juvenile justice system. Therefore, I would find appellant’s express waivers of counsel, service of process and notice of the charge to have been knowingly and voluntarily made. On prior occasions, appellant’s misdeeds resulted in orders which stopped short of commitment. In all likelihood, appellant as well as her mother expected the same result from the October 15, 1985 hearing. This would explain the express waivers of counsel and strict adherence to the other statutory procedures. In my opinion, appellant should not now be heard to complain on these points simply because a stiffer disposition than she expected was imposed.
Decided September 23, 1986.
Robert A. Kunz, for appellant.
Thomas J. Charron, District Attorney, for appellee.
I do, however, agree that the referee’s failure to explain the dis-positional possibilities to appellant requires reversal of the commitment order. Thus, I concur in the opinion of the majority insofar as reversal is based upon this ground.