In re A.M.M.-H.

• Decision Date: 08 November 2013
• Docket Number: No. 109,355.,109,355.
• Citation: 49 Kan.App. 647,312 P.3d 393
• Parties: In the Matter of A.M.M.-H.
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

49 Kan.App. 647

312 P.3d 393

In the Matter of A.M.M.-H.

No. 109,355.

Court of Appeals of Kansas.

Nov. 8, 2013.

Syllabus by the Court

1 K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38–2364 involving extended juvenile jurisdiction proceedings is analyzed and applied.

2. When a juvenile is sentenced under extended juvenile jurisdiction proceedings, the juvenile receives both a juvenile sentence

and an adult criminal sentence. The adult criminal sentence is stayed on the condition the juvenile offender does not violate the provisions of the juvenile sentence and not commit a new offense. K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38–2364(a)(1)–(2).

3. If a juvenile violates the conditions of the juvenile sentence, the juvenile court may immediately lift the stay and, if consistent with the adult sentence, order the juvenile into the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections. After a hearing on the alleged violations, if the court finds a violation of the conditions, the court shall revoke the juvenile sentence and order the imposition of the adult sentence previously ordered. K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38–2364(b).

4. Under the facts of this case, a juvenile who completes the incarceration portion of a juvenile sentence under the extended juvenile jurisdiction proceedings and is granted conditional release may be ordered to serve the adult sentence previously entered by the court if the juvenile violates the provisions of the conditional release under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38–2364(b) and K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38–2369(4)(C).

Michael J. Bartee, of Michael J. Bartee, P.A., of Olathe, for appellant.

Shawn E. Minihan, assistant district attorney, Stephen M. Howe, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before MALONE, C.J., PIERRON and HILL, JJ.

PIERRON, J.

In September 2010, the State charged 15–year–old A.M.M.-H. with rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, and aggravated intimidation of a witness. In April 2011, A.M.M.-H. pled guilty to aggravated indecent liberties with a child and aggravated intimidation of a witness. The parties agreed to proceed under extended juvenile jurisdiction proceedings found in K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38–2347(a)(3). For his juvenile sentence, the district court ordered A.M.M.-H. to serve 24 months' incarceration at the juvenile correction facility and then 24 months' aftercare. For his adult sentence, the court ordered A.M.M.-H. to serve 59 months' incarceration at the Kansas Depart of Corrections for aggravated indecent liberties with a child and a concurrent sentence of 18 months for aggravated intimidation of a witness. The court left the amount of restitution open but ordered costs in the amount of $823.

In September 2012, A.M.M.-H. signed several documents in order to effectuate his conditional release from the juvenile correctional facility. A.M.M.-H. signed a “Conditional Release Contract” that provided the following conditions:

“A. Education, Work and/or Training: If I am under the age of 18 or have not attained a GED, I will attend school in compliance with the compulsory school attendance laws, or participate in an approved educational or vocational/job training program. Otherwise, I will actively seek, obtain and maintain approved employment.

“B. Legal: I will obey all federal, state, county, and local laws, resolutions and ordinances.

“C. Case Plan: I will comply with all conditions listed in my Case Plan.

“D. Community Supervision Agency: I will comply with all program guidelines as set forth by Johnson County Community Corrections. I will report as directed, attend and actively participate in all services and activities as required.

“E. Reporting Requirements: I will contact my community supervision officer within 48 hours, excluding weekends/holidays.

“F. Sex Offender Registration: Required to Register.”

The conditional release contract also provided the following consequences for violations of the contract: “Any violation of the Conditional Release Contract is a violation of State Law (K.S.A.38–2375) and may result in court action to extend the terms of your Release Contract and/or to modify the conditions of your Conditional Release Contract, or to returnyou to the Juvenile Correctional Facility.”

The second document A.M.M.-H. signed was entitled “Formal Acknowledgment of the Conditional Release Contract.” A.M.M.-H. agreed as follows:

“I, [ A.M.M.-H.], have reviewed the court-ordered conditions of my Probation with my Intensive Supervision Officer. This is to acknowledge I fully understand the requirements of the court order and I realize failure to complete any or all of the probations conditions can result in a revocation of probation being brought to the Court's attention.”

The last document signed by A.M.M.-H. was entitled “Juvenile Intensive Supervision Contract.” It provided a list of requirements for A.M.M.-H.: (1) obey the laws and notify his intensive supervision officer (ISO) within 48 hours of any contact with the police; (2) report as directed by his ISO; (3) obey curfew; (4) only use his legal name; (5) pay costs and fees ordered by the court; (6) only operate a properly licensed vehicle and only with a valid driver's license; (7) do not use drugs or intoxicating substances; (8) 12 weeks' house arrest; (9) attend school; (10) do not associate with others involved in illegal activity; (11) do not possess dangerous weapons; (12) do not threaten anyone; (13) cannot be an informant; and (14) information about him would be shared with other agencies. This contract provided the following consequences for committing a violation:

“The Respondent may be placed in confinement at the Juvenile Detention Center (or Adult Detention Center if over the age of 18), placed on House Arrest, or directed to appear in front of the Juvenile Field Services Review Board, if he/she does not comply with the Supervision Contract, Case Supervision Plan, and/or Conditional Release Contract.”

On September 17, 2012, A.M.M.-H. appeared in district court for a permanency hearing. The court entered an order establishing reintegration with the specific finding: “[A.M.M.-H.] has been reintegrated and is ordered to follow all conditions of conditional release.”

Just over a month after starting his conditional release, A.M.M.-H.'s ISO reported that A.M.M.-H. had left home and failed to return. A warrant was issued for his arrest on November 21, 2012, and he was taken into custody on November 26, 2012. The State filed a motion to revoke A.M.M.-H.'s juvenile sentence and impose the adult sentence. The State alleged A.M.M.-H. had failed to notify his ISO of contact with the police involving A.M.M.-H.'s association with known gang members, he had failed to abide by curfew by running away, and he had failed to pay correction and court fees. The district court held a full evidentiary hearing on the State's motion and granted the same. After revoking A.M.M.-H.'s conditional release, the district court imposed A.M.M.-H.'s 59–month adult sentence and ordered him into the custody of the Department of Corrections. A.M.M.-H. appeals.

A.M.M.-H. asks us to strictly construe the juvenile extended jurisdiction statutes in his favor by finding that the conditions of his conditional release were not conditions of his juvenile sentence and therefore he did not violate the conditions of his juvenile sentence. As a result, he argues his adult sentence could not be imposed under K.S.A.2012 Supp. 38–2364(a)(2).

A.M.M.-H.'s statutory arguments on appeal provide us with an unlimited standard of review. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which the appellate courts have unlimited review. State v. Dale, 293 Kan. 660, 662, 267 P.3d 743 (2011). An examination of the juvenile statutes at issue will prove helpful.

The procedures for an extended jurisdiction juvenile adjudication are set out in K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38–2364. Extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution became effective in 1997 and is a mechanism whereby serious or repeat juvenile offenders who might otherwise have been prosecuted as an adult may remain in the juvenile sentencing system. See In re L.M., 286 Kan. 460, 485, 186 P.3d 164 (2008). Upon the juvenile's plea to or a court finding of guilt on the charged offense under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38–2364(a)(1), the court imposes a juvenile punishment consistent with K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38–2361; those punishment options run the gamut from probation to confinement in a juvenile detention facility, substance abuse treatment to vocational training, and restitution to community service work. At the same time, the juvenile court shall “impose an adult criminal sentence.” K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38–2364(a)(2). The adult sentence “shall be stayed on the condition that the juvenile offender not violate the provisions of the juvenile sentence and not commit a new offense.” K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38–2364(a)(2).

If the juvenile violates the conditions of the juvenile sentence, the juvenile court may immediately lift the stay—meaning the adult sentence will be carried out—and, if consistent with the adult sentence, order the offender into the custody of the Department of Corrections. K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38–2364(b). The juvenile is entitled to a hearing to challenge the alleged violations. If the court...