Jane Doe v. Jane Doe
| Decision Date | 02 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 45476 |
| Citation | 165 Idaho 72,438 P.3d 769 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the INTEREST OF: Jane DOE (2017-35), A Juvenile Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age. State of Idaho, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Jane Doe (2017-35), Respondent-Appellant. |
Anne Taylor, Kootenai County Public Defender, Coeur d'Alene, for appellant. Kristen A. Pearson argued.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Jeffery D. Nye argued.
This case addresses whether a juvenile court has jurisdiction to reduce a juvenile's sentence once the juvenile is committed to state custody and the time for appeal has run. Relying on Idaho Criminal Rule 47, the rule which governs the filing of motions generally in criminal cases, Jane Doe filed a motion to modify disposition requesting that the juvenile court place her back on probation after sentence had been imposed and modify its previous computation of credit for time served. The juvenile court held that Doe's motion was actually a motion to reduce sentence under Idaho Criminal Rule 35 () and concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Doe's motion.
Doe appealed the juvenile court's decision to the district court. The district court affirmed the decision, holding that Rule 47 did not grant jurisdiction to reduce the sentence, but that jurisdiction existed under Idaho Code sections 20-505 and 20-507. The district court held that whether the sentence should be modified is a discretionary call and that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in declining to place Doe back on probation or incorrectly calculate Doe's credit for time served. We agree with the district court's decision to affirm the magistrate court's denial of Doe's motion to modify disposition, but write today to explain that there is no jurisdiction for the juvenile court to modify the juvenile's sentence once it has been imposed and the time for appeal has run.
Jane Doe voluntarily admitted to two counts of grand theft in juvenile court and an order for informal adjustment through diversion was entered. A little over a year later, the juvenile court found that Doe violated the terms of her informal adjustment and sentenced her to three hundred sixty days of detention with three hundred twenty nine days suspended. Doe was given one day credit for time previously served and ordered to serve thirty days to be scheduled at a later date. The informal adjustment was not revoked, but Doe was ordered to two years of probation and required to complete family support court.
About ten months later, the State filed a motion to revoke Doe's probation because she had been running away, skipping school, and not taking her medications as prescribed. Doe was detained on a warrant for about twenty days, when she received a conditional release. Doe admitted to two probation violations and disposition was scheduled for a later date.
About six weeks later, the State filed a motion to revoke Doe's conditional release because she had been leaving school without permission and violating school attendance policies. Doe's conditional release was revoked and she was detained again. On the day she was released from detention, Doe appeared for disposition on the probation violations and was allowed to keep her informal adjustment. Shortly thereafter, Doe was ordered to serve two days in detention for violating the terms of her GPS monitoring device and having contact with people who were not on her approved contact list.
The State filed a second motion to revoke Doe's probation because Doe had been lying to her mother, having contact with a 25-year-old man who was not on her approved list of contacts, and continued absences from school. The court terminated Doe's probation. Three hundred sixty days of detention were imposed; Doe was given credit for one hundred twenty nine days served previously; and Doe was ordered to serve the remaining two hundred thirty one days immediately. Doe was granted a furlough to seek out-of-state medical treatment, but the juvenile court made it clear that no credit for time served would be granted while she was receiving treatment.
Approximately three years after the juvenile court entered the original informal adjustment through diversion, Doe filed a motion to modify disposition requesting leniency and to correct her sentence regarding credit for time served. Specifically, Doe requested that the juvenile court give her two days of credit for every day she spent in detention and place her back on probation. The juvenile court found that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Doe's motion. Despite Doe's claims that she had filed her motion with the court under Idaho Juvenile Rule 21 and Idaho Criminal Rule 47, the juvenile court found that Doe's motion was actually brought under Idaho Criminal Rule 35, which is not applicable to juveniles sentenced under the Juvenile Corrections Act. The court went on to state that even if jurisdiction existed it would have denied Doe's motion on the merits.
Doe appealed the juvenile court's decision to the district court. The district court agreed that jurisdiction did not exist under Idaho Juvenile Rule 21 and Idaho Criminal Rule 47, but found that jurisdiction existed under Idaho Code sections 20-505 and 20-507 ; as such, the juvenile court could have modified Doe's sentence. Nonetheless, the district court affirmed the juvenile court on the merits holding that the court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to place Doe back on probation and there was no basis in the Juvenile Corrections Act which supported Doe's argument that her credit for time served should have been doubled in this case, where she actually served one hundred twenty nine days in detention. Doe timely appealed to this Court. Doe finished serving her sentence while this appeal was pending.
1. Whether Doe's appeal is moot because she finished serving her sentence and has been released from custody.
2. Whether the district court erred in holding that the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to modify Doe's sentence under Idaho Juvenile Rule 21 and Idaho Criminal Rule 47.
3. Whether Doe was entitled to additional credit for time served.
Pelayo v. Pelayo, 154 Idaho 855, 858-59, 303 P.3d 214, 217-18 (2013).
A. Doe's appeal falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine because it concerns issues that are of substantial public interest.
As a threshold matter, the State argues that Doe's appeal should be dismissed as moot because Doe finished serving her sentence and was released from custody while this appeal was pending; as such, a favorable decision from this Court cannot provide her any relief. Doe concedes that her appeal is moot; however, she maintains that two exceptions apply to her appeal: (1) a juvenile serving more time than legally permitted is capable of repetition and likely to evade judicial review; and (2) the issue regarding whether a court can correct an illegal juvenile sentence, grant leniency, or grant credit for time served on each charge pre-judgment is of substantial public interest. We agree with the latter, and find there to be a substantial public interest in whether a juvenile court has the ability to modify a juvenile sentence after it has been imposed.
"An issue is moot if it ‘does not present a real and substantial controversy that is capable of being concluded through judicial decree of specific relief’ or if ‘a favorable judicial decision would not result in any relief or the party lacks a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’ " State v. Abdullah, 158 Idaho 386, 462, 348 P.3d 1, 77 (2015) (quoting Arambarri v. Armstrong, 152 Idaho 734, 739, 274 P.3d 1249, 1254 (2012) ). Generally, "[a]fter the satisfaction of a judgment in a criminal case there is nothing on which a judgment of the appellate court can act effectively because there is nothing from which to appeal, and further proceedings are moot." State v. Rogers, 140 Idaho 223, 227, 91 P.3d 1127, 1131 (2004) (quoting State v. Snyder, 88 Idaho 479, 482, 401 P.2d 548, 550 (1965) ). This Court has recognized, however, three exceptions that can save an issue from the mootness doctrine: "(1) when there is the possibility of collateral legal consequences imposed on the person raising the issue; (2) when the challenged conduct is likely to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition; and (3) when an otherwise moot issue raises concerns of substantial public interest." State v. Barclay, 149 Idaho 6, 8, 232 P.3d 327, 329 (2010).
The State maintains that the issues Doe raised on appeal are of little interest to the general public as appellate courts have used that phrase in the past. However, we find that Doe's appeal presents an area of unsettled law that warrants consideration...
To continue reading
Request your trial