Angela Suzanne C., Matter of, 83-JU-28-127

• Decision Date: 23 April 1985
• Docket Number: No. 0504,No. 83-JU-28-127,A,83-JU-28-127,0504
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: In the Matter of ANGELA SUZANNE C., (a minor under the age of seventeen) Juvenile Petitionppellant. . Heard

Page 542

332 S.E.2d 542

286 S.C. 186

In the Matter of ANGELA SUZANNE C., (a minor under the age of seventeen) Juvenile Petition No. 83-JU-28-127, Appellant.

No. 0504.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard April 23, 1985.

Decided June 18, 1985.

Asst. Appellate Defender Tara D. Shurling, S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock and Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Columbia, and Sol. John R. Justice, Chester, for respondent.

CURETON, Judge:

This is an appeal from an order in a family court juvenile proceeding. The question presented on appeal is whether the family court committed error in holding the appellant Angela Suzanne in contempt of court and sentencing her to the custody of the South Carolina Department of Youth Services for a period of six months. We dismiss the appeal.

Angela is a fifteen-year-old female who has been involved with the Department of Youth Services for over four years. Prior to the charges in this case, she was found to be incorrigible and a truant. As a result, she was adjudged to be a chronic status offender, placed on probation, and enrolled in the Chronic Status Offenders Program.

In January 1983, Angela appeared before the family court for violation of the terms of her probation. At that time she was continued on probation and placed in a group home. In the probation order, the trial judge set forth the conditions of Angela's probation which included regular school attendance.

In October 1983, Angela was again brought before the family court on a truancy charge and for violation of the terms of her probation. At this hearing, Angela admitted her truancy, but testified that at no time had she been advised that violation of the terms of her probation would subject her to incarceration in a correctional institution operated by the Department of Youth Services. ¹ Her testimony was substantiated by that of her probation counselor.

The trial judge found, inter alia, that Angela had knowingly and willfully violated the conditions of her probation. He further found that as a result of her prior participation in the Chronic Status Offenders Program, Angela understood that disobedience of the probation order would result in incarceration in a secure facility operated by the Department of Youth Services. Based on these findings, the trial judge found Angela in contempt and sentenced her to the custody of the Department of Youth Services for a period of six months.

On appeal Angela argues that the family court should not have held her in contempt and sentenced her to confinement in a secure facility because the record fails to show that (1) all less restrictive alternatives had been exhausted and (2) she understood that disobedience of the prior court order would constitute contempt and result in confinement in a secure facility. The State argues that the record amply demonstrates first, that all less restrictive alternatives had been exhausted and second, that Angela understood that the consequences of violation of the probation order included incarceration in a secure facility. Finally, the State argues that since Angela has served her sentence, there is no meaningful relief this Court can grant her and under the holding of In the Interest of Darlene C., 278 S.C. 664, 301 S.E.2d 136 (1983), this appeal is moot. Thus, the threshold question for our consideration is that of mootness.

It is settled law that this Court will not issue advisory opinions on questions for which no meaningful relief can be granted. Jones v. Dillon-Marion Human Resources Development Commission, 277 S.C. 533, 291 S.E.2d 195 (1982). In...