In re M. P.

• Court: Maryland Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Watts, J.
• Citation: In re M. P., 487 Md. 53, 314 A.3d 348 (Md. 2024)
• Docket Number: 3
• Decision Date: 23 April 2024
• Parties: IN RE: M. P.

314 A.3d 348

487 Md. 53

IN RE: M. P.

No. 3, Sept. Term, 2023

Supreme Court of Maryland.

April 23, 2024

Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Case No. JA-22-0183, Peter K. Killough, Judge

Argued by Michele D. Hall, Asst. Public Defender (Stephanie Asplundh, Asst. Public Defender and Natasha M. Dartigue, Public Defender of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellant.

Argued by Menelik Coates, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Anthony G. Brown, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellee.

Counsel for Amici Curiae the Public Justice Center, American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, the Baltimore Action Legal Team, the Center for Children’s Law and Policy, the Gault Center, and Juvenile Law Center: Hayley Hahn, Esquire, Murnaghan Appellate Advocacy Fellow, Public Justice Center, 201 N. Charles Street, Suite 1200, Baltimore, MD 21201.

Argued before: Fader, C.J., Watts,^* Hotten, Booth, Biran, Gould, Eaves, JJ.

Watts, J.

In this case, we are asked to determine whether a legislative change to the jurisdiction of juvenile courts, removing children under the age of 13, except under limited circumstances, from a juvenile court’s jurisdiction in delinquency proceedings, applies to delinquency proceedings that were pending at the time of the law taking effect and therefore requires dismissal of the proceedings. Before reaching this question, we must assess whether the interlocutory appeal that brought the case to us is permitted.

The law in question, Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. (2006, 2020 Repl. Vol., 2022 Supp.) ("CJ") § 3-8A-03, which the General Assembly amended as part of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act ("the JJRA"), see 2022 Md. Laws (Vol. —, Ch. 41, S.B. 691); 2022 Md. Laws — (Vol. —, Ch. 42, H.B. 459), removed from the juvenile courts’ jurisdiction juvenile delinquency proceedings against children under 13 years of age, with the exception of those aged 10 to 12 years old charged with committing an act that would be considered a crime of violence if committed by an adult. See CJ § 3-8A-03(a)(1), (d)(7). The General Assembly enacted this change in juvenile delinquency law upon the recommendation of the Maryland Juvenile Justice Reform Council ("the JJRC"), which determined, among other things, that young children are harmed by involvement in the juvenile delinquency system, with evidence increasingly demonstrating that young children have limited ability to appreciate their culpability for delinquent acts or to understand delinquency proceedings. See JJRC, Final Report at 6, 17 (Jan. 2021), available at http://dls.maryland.gov/pubs/prod/NoPblTabMtg/CmsnJuvRefCncl/JJRC Final Report.pdf [https://perma.CC/4DS9 T5PH].

The jurisdictional change took effect on June 1, 2022, after the child in this case, M.P., Appellant, had been charged in a delinquency petition in juvenile court with the theft of a motor vehicle and related acts that were alleged to have occurred when he was 12 years old.¹ On June 30, 2022, before the juvenile court held an adjudicatory hearing on the petition, M.P. filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction, contending that the change in law divested the juvenile court of jurisdiction over him. The State, Appellee, opposed the motion. On August 8, 2022, the juvenile court denied the motion, concluding that it had jurisdiction over M.P. based on the delinquency petition having been filed before June 1, 2022, the effective date of the JJRA. M.P. noted an interlocutory appeal to the Appellate Court of Maryland and filed in the juvenile court a motion to stay proceedings pending appeal, which was granted. Before the Appellate Court resolved the appeal, M.P. petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari. In an answer to the petition, the State contended that the juvenile court’s denial of M.P.’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is an interlocutory ruling that is not immediately appealable, and that M.P.’s petition should be denied.

We granted the petition to resolve two questions: whether M.P.’s interlocutory appeal is permitted under the collateral order doctrine, and whether the juvenile court was correct in ruling that it maintained jurisdiction over M.P., a child charged with non-violent acts allegedly committed when he was 12 years old, before the effective date of the JJRA. On September 8, 2023, after oral argument in the case, we issued an order denying a motion by the State to dismiss M.P.’s appeal, concluding that under the common law collateral order doctrine, an immediate appeal of the August 8, 2022 ruling of the juvenile court denying M.P.’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is permitted. In the same order, we reversed the juvenile court’s denial of M.P.’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See In Re: M. P., 486 Md. 92, 93-94, 301 A.3d 1254, 1254-55 (2023) (per curiam). We now explain the basis for that order.

In this Court, the parties disagree only as to whether an interlocutory appeal is allowed. M.P. contends that his interlocutory appeal is permitted under the collateral order doctrine as an exception to the general requirement that an appeal lies only from a final judgment. The State responds that the collateral order doctrine does not apply and includes in its brief a motion to dismiss the appeal. The parties agree, however, that, should this Court determine that M.P.’s appeal is not permitted under the collateral order doctrine, the Court may exercise its discretion to address the merits to provide guidance to juvenile courts about jurisdiction in this case and others like it.

As to the merits, the parties agree that the juvenile court erred in denying M.P.’s motion to dismiss. The parties agree that, under this Court’s case law, as a result of the jurisdictional change brought about by the JJRA, the juvenile court does not have jurisdiction over M.P. because he was charged with committing non-violent acts when he was 12 years old and the case was pending in the juvenile court at the time that the JJRA became effective. M.P. and the State agree that applying the jurisdictional change from the JJRA to a delinquency case that was pending, but not final, on June 1, 2022, does not involve a determination as to whether the change applies retroactively, but rather rests on the prospective application of a change in juvenile law, making the new law applicable to this case and others in a similar procedural posture.

In the petition for a writ of certiorari, as the second of two questions, M.P. asked this Court to determine whether an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of juvenile court jurisdiction is immediately appealable. Because challenges to jurisdiction in juvenile matters may occur for a variety of reasons, we rephrase M.P.’s question as follows: whether a juvenile court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine where the court determined that it maintained jurisdiction over a child who was 12 years old at the time he allegedly committed a nonviolent delinquent act,² because the petition for juvenile delinquency was filed before the effective date of the JJRA. We answer the question "yes" and conclude that M.P.’s appeal is permitted under the collateral order doctrine.

Addressing the merits, we agree with M.P. and the State that the juvenile court erred in denying M.P.’s motion to dismiss. We hold that a juvenile court does not have jurisdiction over a child who was 10 to 12 years old at the time of an alleged delinquent act and charged in a petition for juvenile delinquency with the commission of an act that, if committed by an adult, is not a crime of violence as specified in Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law (2002, 2021 Repl. Vol., 2022 Supp.) ("CR") § 14-101, where the petition was pending adjudication of delinquency³ in the juvenile court as of the effective date of the JJRA. See CJ § 3-8A-03(a)(1), (d)(7).

Given that the petition charging M.P. with delinquent acts was pending adjudication at the time that the JJRA took effect and there is no dispute about M.P.’s age at the time of the alleged acts (he was 12 years old) or that he was charged with conduct that, if committed by an adult, would not have constituted a crime of violence under CR § 14-101, based on the plain language of the JJRA, its legislative history, and our case law, the juvenile court erred in denying M.P.’s motion to dismiss. Therefore, in this and any other case in which a juvenile delinquency petition is pending on or after June 1, 2022, in which there is no genuine factual dispute concerning the juvenile’s age or whether the juvenile was charged with having committed an act that would not be a crime of violence if committed by an adult, the juvenile court no longer has jurisdiction over the juvenile and must dismiss the case.

BACKGROUND

On April 9, 2022, the General Assembly enacted the JJRA, with an effective date of June 1, 2022. See 2022 Md. Laws — (Vol. —, Ch. 41, S.B. 691); 2022 Md. Laws —(Vol. —, Ch. 42, H.B. 459). Among other changes, this legislation established, for the first time, a minimum age restriction on the jurisdiction of juvenile courts with regard to children alleged to be delinquent. See CJ § 3-8A-03(a)(1), (d)(7). Whereas, previously, the juvenile court had "exclusive original jurisdiction over[ a] child who is alleged to be delinquent[,]" Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. (2006, 2020 Repl. Vol., 2021 Supp.) ("CJ (2021)") § 3-8A-03(a)(1), and there was no minimum age limitation, the JJRA restricted a juvenile court’s jurisdiction in delinquency proceedings to children "[w]ho [are] at least 13 years old [and] alleged to be delin- quent" or "at least 10 years old [and] alleged to have committed an act[ t]hat, if committed by an adult, would constitute a crime of violence, as defined in" CR § 14-101, or "[a]rising out of the same incident as" such an act, CJ § 3-8A-03(a)(1), (d)(7).⁴ The JJRA also added CJ § 3-8A-03(f), which provides that "[a] child...