1998 -NMCA- 114, Zac McV., Matter of

• Decision Date: 11 June 1998
• Docket Number: No. 18755,18755
• Parties: , 1998 -NMCA- 114 In the Matter of ZAC McV., a Child, Child-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Page 144

964 P.2d 144

125 N.M. 583, 1998 -NMCA- 114

In the Matter of ZAC McV., a Child, Child-Appellant.

No. 18755.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

June 11, 1998.

Certiorari Denied Aug. 13, 1998.

Phyllis H. Subin, Chief Public Defender, Lisabeth L. Occhialino, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for Appellant.

Tom Udall, Attorney General, M. Victoria Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, for Appellee.

OPINION

DONNELLY, Judge.

¶1 This case poses the issue of whether the children's court has jurisdiction to modify a prior disposition and commitment, pursuant to a motion filed by the Child several months after the court had found the child to be delinquent and had transferred his custody to the Children, Youth, and Families Department (the CYFD). We conclude that under the circumstances presented here, the children's court is without authority to modify its prior disposition and commitment, and thus, affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE

¶2 In a prior proceeding, the Child admitted to the delinquent act of carrying a firearm onto school property. See NMSA 1978, § 30-7-2.1(A), (C) (1994) (designated as a fourth-degree felony); NMSA 1978, § 32A-2-3(A)(1)(k) (1996) ("delinquent act" includes all felony offenses). On May 8, 1996, the children's court by judgment and disposition found the Child to be delinquent, committed the Child to the New Mexico Youth Diagnostic and Development Center for one year, but suspended the commitment and placed the Child on supervised probation for two years. On February 27, 1997, the Child tested positive for the use of marijuana and cocaine and, on March 11, 1997, the Child was arrested for shoplifting two packs of cigarettes while violating house arrest.

¶3 The State moved to revoke the Child's probation, and following a hearing the Child admitted violating probation. On April 8, 1997, the children's court entered its judgment and disposition (corrected by amendment on June 9, 1997), found that the Child needed care or rehabilitation, transferred his legal and physical custody to the CYFD, and ordered that the Child be committed to the New Mexico Boys' School for an indeterminate period not to exceed two years.

¶4 On August 4, 1997, the Child filed a motion for the children's court to reconsider the commitment because he alleged that he had been victimized and abused at the Springer facility. The Child also asserted that the commitment was too harsh a penalty for the probation violation of shoplifting. The children's court concluded that it had no jurisdiction over the matter because the Child's motion to modify was filed beyond the thirty-day period specified in NMSA 1978, § 32A-2-23(G) (1995) (Subsection G), and consequently it denied the motion.

DISCUSSION

¶5 We review the ruling of the children's court de novo to determine whether as a matter of law the Delinquency Act provisions, NMSA 1978, §§ 32A-2-1 to -32 (1993, as amended through 1996), contained in the Children's Code (the Code), NMSA 1978, §§ 32A-1-1 to -21-7 (1993, as amended through 1997), invest the children's court with the authority to grant the requested relief. See State v. Rowell, 121 N.M. 111, 114, 908 P.2d 1379, 1382 (1995) (statutory construction presents question of law); see also State v. Carlos A., 1996-NMCA-082, p 6, 122 N.M. 241, 923 P.2d 608 (construing the Code de novo).

¶6 The Child maintains that the children's court is invested with jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 32A-2-23(F) (Subsection F) to reconsider its original disposition even after the expiration of the thirty-day period for filing an appeal or moving for reconsideration. See Rule 10-230(C) NMRA 1998; Rule 12-201(A) NMRA 1998. Section 32A-2-23 provides, in pertinent part:

A. A judgment transferring legal custody of an adjudicated delinquent child to an agency responsible for the care and rehabilitation of delinquent children divests the court of jurisdiction at the time of transfer of custody, unless the transfer of legal custody is for a commitment not exceeding fifteen days pursuant to the provisions of Section 32A-2-19[ (B)(4) ]....

....

D. Prior to the expiration of a long-term commitment, as provided for in Section 32A-2-19 NMSA 1978, the court may extend the judgment for additional periods of one year until the child reaches the age of twenty-one if the court finds that the extension is necessary to safeguard the welfare of the child or the public interest.

....

F. The court may dismiss a motion if it finds after preliminary investigation that the motion is without substance. If the court is of the opinion that the matter should be reviewed, it may, upon notice to all necessary parties, proceed to a hearing in the manner provided for hearings on petitions alleging delinquency. The court may terminate a judgment if it finds that the child is no longer in need of care, supervision or rehabilitation or it may enter a judgment extending or modifying the original judgment if it finds that action necessary to safeguard the child or the public interest.

G. A child may make a motion to modify a children's court or adult disposition within thirty days of the judge's decision. If the court is of the opinion that the matter should be reviewed, it may, upon notice to all necessary parties, proceed to a hearing in the manner provided for hearings on petitions alleging delinquency.

¶7 The Child also contends that the meaning of Subsection F is ambiguous, necessitating that we discern the legislative intent underlying the enactment of this provision. See Rowell, 121 N.M. at 114, 908 P.2d at 1382 (to give effect to intent of Legislature, courts look to objectives of statute and wrong sought to be remedied). As provided in Section 32A-2-2(A), the purpose of the Delinquency Act is to protect "the public interest, to remove from children committing delinquent acts the adult consequences of criminal behavior, but to still hold children ... accountable for their actions to the extent of the child's age, education, mental and physical condition, background and all other relevant factors, and to provide a program of supervision, care and rehabilitation...." Additionally, the Act is intended "to provide effective deterrents to acts of juvenile delinquency[.]" Section 32A-2-2(B).

¶8 The Child maintains that in enacting Subsection F, the Legislature intended that the children's court retain jurisdiction over delinquent children placed in the custody of the CYFD in order to monitor whether such children are being provided with an appropriate program of supervision, care, and rehabilitation. See § 32A-2-2(A); State v. Jonathan M., 109 N.M. 789, 790, 791 P.2d 64, 65 (1990). In advancing this argument, the Child argues that Subsection F was intended to permit the children's court to modify or terminate a commitment if such action is consistent with the goal of rehabilitating children previously adjudicated as delinquent. The Child posits that consistent with the objectives of the Code, Subsection F is an exception to Subsections A and G which places express limits on the children's court's jurisdiction. Thus, he argues that Subsection F enables the children's court to determine whether a previously ordered commitment continues to serve the Child's best interests and, if so, whether the court should modify its prior disposition.

¶9 The State agrees that the children's court has jurisdiction to modify a disposition under certain circumstances, but maintains that the circumstances presented here do not permit the court's exercise of jurisdiction. See In re Jacinta M., 107 N.M. 769, 771, 764 P.2d 1327, 1329 (Ct.App.1988) (authority of children's court limited by the Code). The State asserts that the meaning of Section 32A-2-23 is plain, that "Subsection A divests the court of jurisdiction upon [the court's] transfer of custody [of the child] to CYFD, [that] Subsection F provides an exception to lack of jurisdiction, and [that] Subsection G places a limitation on the exception provided in Subsection F."

¶10 We agree with the Child that the statute is ambiguous. See Leo v. Cornucopia Restaurant, 118 N.M. 354, 357, 881 P.2d 714, 717 (Ct.App.1994) (whether statute is ambiguous poses question of law); State v. Elmquist, 114 N.M. 551, 552, 844 P.2d 131, 132 (Ct.App.1992) (statute is ambiguous if reasonably well-informed persons could differ on its meaning). In resolving the issue of the meaning of Section 32A-2-23, we apply principles of statutory construction to determine the intended scope of Subsection F. To this end, we examine Section 32A-2-23 in view of the Act's legislative purpose, see Jonathan M., 109 N.M. at 790, 791 P.2d at 65, and consider its provisions as a whole and in light of other related provisions within the Code. See State v. Ricky G., 110 N.M. 646, 648, 798 P.2d 596, 598 (Ct.App.1990) (considering context in determining meaning of dispositional provision of the Code); State v. Henry L., 109 N.M. 792, 794, 791 P.2d 67, 69 (Ct.App.1990) (Code to be construed as a whole to effectuate legislative objective).

¶11 The Child, relying on Jonathan M., 109 N.M. at 790, 791 P.2d at 65, and Carlos A., 1996-NMCA-082, 122 N.M. 241, 923 P.2d 608, asserts that the function of the children's court is to fashion a remedy for the delinquent child that benefits both the child and society. In Carlos A., 1996-NMCA-082, pp 10, 13, 122 N.M. 241, 923 P.2d 608, the children's court, without objection from either party, expressly reserved jurisdiction to hear the child's motion to modify a commitment well beyond expiration of the thirty-day period for filing motions to reconsider as prescribed in Subsection G. There, however, the child moved for reconsideration of the commitment within the specified thirty-day period, and the children's court, in its initial commitment, announced that any future modification would be based on the child's intervening behavior. Id. p 13. This Court determined that under those circumstances, the...