In re T.M.L.
| Decision Date | 17 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. DA 11–0349.,DA 11–0349. |
| Citation | 268 P.3d 1255,363 Mont. 304,2012 MT 9 |
| Parties | In the matter of T.M.L., A Youth under the Age of 18. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
For Appellant: Colin M. Stephens, Smith & Stephens, P.C., Missoula, Montana.
For Appellee: Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General; Tammy A. Hinderman, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, John T. Flynn, Broadwater County Attorney, Townsend, Montana.
[363 Mont. 305] ¶ 1 T.M.L. appeals two orders of the First Judicial District, Broadwater County, one denying T.M.L.'s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the other requiring T.M.L. to register as a sex offender. We affirm in part, and remand for the limited purpose of striking the sentencing condition requiring T.M.L. to register as a sexual offender.
¶ 2 In 2009, seventeen year old T.M.L. was charged in Youth Court with felony burglary, misdemeanor criminal trespass to vehicles, and misdemeanor theft from a vehicle. Based upon T.M.L.'s admissions of entering a house and car without permission, and stealing women's undergarments, T.M.L. pled guilty to felony burglary and misdemeanor criminal trespass to vehicles on March 5, 2010.
¶ 3 The Youth Court entered a Dispositional Order on March 26, 2010, which provided in pertinent part:
1. That the Youth, [T.M.L.], be placed on probation to the Juvenile Probation Department of the First Judicial District until he reaches the age of 18 years old and for the balance of said term, be under the control, abide by, and carefully follow the instructions of said Juvenile Probation Department. Upon reaching the age of 18, the Youth will appear before the Court for the purpose of a Transfer Hearing pursuant to § 41–5–208, MCA, to transfer supervision and responsibility to the District Court and the supervision to the Adult Probation and Parole Department and to determine conditions of his probation with the Adult Probation and Parole Department....
T.M.L. turned eighteen on April 30, 2010.
¶ 4 On November 5, 2010, the State filed a Motion to Reinstate Youth Court Petition and transfer from youth court to district court pursuant to § 41–5–208, MCA, and § 41–5–1501(4), MCA. In response, T.M.L. filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the State failed to file the motion prior to T.M.L. turning eighteen. The Youth Court denied T.M.L.'s motion to dismiss on January 11, 2011. On March 7, 2011, the Youth Court transferred T.M.L.'s matter to district court, and transferred T.M.L.'s supervision to adult supervision under the Department of Corrections. As part of its March 7, 2011, Order, the District Court required T.M.L. to register as a sexual offender. This timely appeal followed.
¶ 5 We restate the issues as follows:
¶ 6 Issue One: Did the Youth Court err when it retained jurisdiction over T.M.L.?
¶ 7 Issue Two: Did the Youth Court err when it required T.M.L. to register as a sexual offender?
¶ 8 A youth court's interpretation and application of the Youth Court Act is reviewed for correctness. In re J.A., 2011 MT 132, ¶ 5, 361 Mont. 16, 255 P.3d 150 (citing In re Cascade Co. Dist. Ct., 2009 MT 355, ¶ 10, 353 Mont. 194, 219 P.3d 1255). We review criminal sentences for legality, to determine whether they are within the parameters set by statutes as a matter of law. State v. Grana, 2009 MT 250, ¶ 11, 351 Mont. 499, 213 P.3d 783.
¶ 9 Issue One: Did the Youth Court err when it retained jurisdiction over T.M.L.?
¶ 10 T.M.L. argues the Youth Court lost jurisdiction when T.M.L. turned eighteen because T.M.L.'s probation ended upon T.M.L. reaching the age of eighteen. The State argues the Youth Court retained jurisdiction because the Dispositional Order extended jurisdiction past T.M.L.'s probationary period in order to conduct a transfer hearing. The Youth Court agreed with the State and retained jurisdiction because the Youth Court had not terminated its jurisdiction pursuant to § 41–5–205(1), MCA, and because § 41–5–208(1), MCA, permits a youth court to transfer a matter to district court “at any time after a youth reaches 18 years of age but before the youth reaches 21 years of age.” We agree with the Youth Court.
¶ 11 Generally, a youth court's jurisdiction ceases when the youth reaches the age of twenty-one. In re J.A., ¶ 9. Section 41–5–205(1), MCA, provides:
The court may dismiss a petition or otherwise terminate jurisdiction on its own motion or on the motion or petition of any interested party at any time. Unless terminated by the court and except as provided in subsections (2) and (3), the jurisdiction of the court continues until the individual becomes 21 years of age.
Pursuant to § 41–5–208(1), MCA, a youth court retains jurisdiction to transfer a matter to the district court “at any time after a youth reaches 18 years of age but before the youth reaches 21 years of age.”
[363 Mont. 307] ¶ 12 If the exceptions found in § 41–5–205, MCA, are inapplicable, a youth court may continue to exercise jurisdiction over an individual until he or she reaches 21 years of age. In re K.D.K., 2006 MT 187, ¶ 20, 333 Mont. 100, 141 P.3d 1212. In K.D.K., the Youth Court required K.D.K. to compensate the victim for any therapy costs associated with K.D.K.'s crime against the victim. K.D.K., ¶ 4. The Order further provided that K.D.K.'s probation would end on February 27, 2005, when K.D.K. turned eighteen. K.D.K., ¶ 4. The Youth Court also stated it would “retain jurisdiction over the youth until the age of twenty-one for financial purposes such as payment of fees/fines, attorney fees and/or restitution.” K.D.K., ¶ 4.
¶ 13 In June 2003, K.D.K. executed a restitution agreement and agreed to pay $4,507.53 to the victim. K.D.K., ¶ 6. On February 11, 2005, the State moved to modify the Youth Court's Order and requested additional restitution. K.D.K., ¶ 7. Two days before K.D.K. turned eighteen, on February 25, 2005, the Youth Court held a hearing on the State's motion and required both parties to submit post-hearing briefs. K.D.K., ¶ 9. In K.D.K.'s brief, K.D.K. asserted that the Youth Court could no longer exercise jurisdiction over K.D.K. because K.D.K.'s probation ended on February 27, 2005. K.D.K., ¶ 11. More than three months after K.D.K.'s probation ended, on June 9, 2005, the Youth Court granted the State's motion to modify its Order and impose additional restitution. K.D.K., ¶ 11.
¶ 14 K.D.K. appealed the imposition of additional restitution, arguing that the Youth Court was without jurisdiction to order additional restitution after K.D.K.'s probation ended on February 27, 2005. K.D.K., ¶ 17. On appeal, this Court held that the Youth Court lost jurisdiction—except in relation to the financial obligations outlined in the original Order and the restitution agreement—pursuant to § 41–5–205, MCA, on February 27, 2005, and thereby lost its ability to impose additional financial obligations on K.D.K. K.D.K., ¶ 20. This Court further noted that in a different case a youth court may “retain jurisdiction over a youth until he or she reaches 21 years of age.” K.D.K. ¶ 20.
¶ 15 In this case, unlike K.D.K., the Youth Court did not terminate its jurisdiction under § 41–5–205, MCA, once T.M.L. turned eighteen and T.M.L.'s probation ended. Instead, the Youth Court purposefully retained jurisdiction over T.M.L. when it required T.M.L., upon turning eighteen, to appear before the court for the purpose of a transfer hearing. It is irrelevant that the State did not request the transfer hearing until approximately six months after T.M.L. reached the age of eighteen. Further, § 41–5–208, MCA, contemplates this exact situation and provides youth court jurisdiction over a transfer proceeding once a youth reaches eighteen, but before the youth turns twenty-one. Since the exceptions to § 41–5–205(1), MCA, are inapplicable, the Youth Court had jurisdiction over T.M.L. and properly denied T.M.L.'s motion to dismiss.
¶ 16 Issue Two: Did the Youth Court err when it required T.M.L. to register as a sexual offender?
¶ 17 The appropriate remedy for an illegal sentencing condition hinges on the ability of the lower court to correct the illegal sentencing condition on remand. State v. Olivares–Coster, 2011 MT 196, ¶ 16, 361 Mont. 380, 259 P.3d 760. To determine the appropriate remedy, we utilize the following approach:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re S.M.K.–S.H., DA 11–0772.
...jurisdiction over [him] at the time it extended its jurisdiction for three years.” ¶ 19 The youth further relies on In re T.M.L., 2012 MT 9, 363 Mont. 304, 268 P.3d 1255, for the proposition that a youth court must “purposefully retain jurisdiction after a youth reaches the age of 18” in or......
-
State v. Leyva
...level designation may only be made for persons convicted of a sexual offense as defined in § 46–23–502(9), MCA. Holt, ¶ 21;see also In re T.M.L., 2012 MT 9, ¶ 18, 363 Mont. 304, 268 P.3d 1255 (holding sexual offender registration requirement applied only to the statutory list of sexual offe......
-
State v. Dietsch
...We review criminal sentences for legality, to determine whether they are within the parameters set by statutes as a matter of law. Matter of T.M.L., 2012 MT 9, ¶ 8, 363 Mont. 304, 268 P.3d 1255DISCUSSION ¶ 11 Whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying Dietsch's request for ......
-
City of Bozeman v. Cantu
...requirement to a conviction absent statutory authority. State v. Holt, 2011 MT 42, ¶¶ 20–21, 359 Mont. 308, 249 P.3d 470;In re T.M.L., 2012 MT 9, ¶¶ 18–19, 363 Mont. 304, 268 P.3d 1255. A requirement to register as a sexual offender and receive an offender-level designation may be imposed o......