JP v. State

• Decision Date: 02 August 2022
• Docket Number: S-21-0262
• Parties: In the Interest of: JP, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

514 P.3d 785

In the Interest of: JP, Appellant (Defendant),

v.The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

S-21-0262

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

August 2, 2022

Representing Appellant: Office of the Public Defender: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Kirk A. Morgan, Chief Appellate Counsel; H. Michael Bennett, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Bennett.

Representing Appellee: Bridget L. Hill, Attorney General, Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General, Joshua C. Eames^* , Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kristen Reeves Jones, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Jones.

Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

FENN, Justice.

[¶1] JP appeals from an order adjudicating him delinquent and the corresponding order of disposition. He asserts he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to timely demand a jury trial. We affirm.

ISSUE

[¶2] We rephrase the issue as:

I. Did JP receive ineffective assistance of counsel which deprived him of his right to a jury trial?

FACTS

[¶3] The underlying facts of this case are not directly relevant to the issue on appeal. In summary, the State filed a delinquency petition alleging JP, who was 17 years old, inflicted sexual intrusion on LH, who was 13 years old, while she was asleep and physically helpless, in violation of Wyoming Statutes § 6-2-302(a)(iii), § 6-2-306(a)(i), and § 6-10-102. The juvenile court held an initial hearing on the delinquency petition on April 12, 2021. JP was represented by privately retained counsel at the initial hearing. At the initial hearing, the juvenile court advised JP of his right to demand a jury trial:

You are entitled to have a trial in this matter. At that trial you can request a jury. If you request a jury within ten days of today and make that request in writing with the clerk of district court, it will entitle you to a jury trial of either 6 or 12 persons, depending how it's requested. If you don't make that request within ten days, it will be a bench trial, but in either event you're going to have a trial with me presiding over it either as the finder of fact or just the arbiter of law within 60 days of the -- today, or at most, 90 days from the filing of the Petition.

After advising JP of his other statutory and constitutional rights, the juvenile court confirmed JP understood his rights. Although the parties agreed three days were needed for the adjudicatory hearing, JP did not orally demand a jury trial at his initial hearing.

[¶4] On April 15, 2021, three days after the initial hearing, JP's private counsel asked to withdraw. That same day, the juvenile court entered an order allowing him to withdraw and a separate order appointing the public defender's office to represent JP. The juvenile court set the case for a three-day "trial" beginning June 30, 2021. This notice of setting did not specify whether the adjudicatory hearing would be a bench trial or a jury trial.

[¶5] On April 19, 2021, seven days after the initial hearing, JP's new attorney filed a document called Juvenile's Omnibus Entry of Appearance and Initial Motions and Demands for Production. Although this pleading demanded a speedy trial under Rule 48 of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure, Article 1, § 10 of the Wyoming Constitution,¹ and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution,² it did not contain a demand for a jury trial under Wyoming Statute § 14-6-223(c) of the Juvenile Justice Act. No separate jury demand was filed within the statutory ten-day period.

[¶6] The juvenile court held a scheduling conference on June 3, 2021, fifty-two days after the initial hearing. At that conference, the juvenile court indicated it had not seen a jury demand filed in this case. The county attorney confirmed she likewise had not seen a jury demand. The juvenile court then asked JP's attorney if the court had somehow missed the demand. JP's counsel stated:

You did not, Your Honor. I just, for the record, I was not present at the initial hearing. I hadn't been appointed yet. So I did not make a jury demand. I know my client would like a jury trial. I don't know if the Court will entertain a demand at this point.

The juvenile court then asked the court reporter to review the transcript of the initial hearing to confirm the court had advised JP of "the ten-day right" at that hearing. The court reporter confirmed the court had given JP the advisement. The county attorney argued JP waived his right to a jury trial by not filing a jury demand within the ten-day period set forth in Wyoming Statute § 14-6-223(c), and the State wished to enforce that waiver.

[¶7] JP's attorney argued JP had a right to a jury trial because the delinquency petition charged him with the equivalent of a felony. The juvenile court found delinquency cases were not criminal proceedings, and the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial did not apply in juvenile cases. When discussing JP's statutory right to a jury trial, the juvenile court stated: "the legislature has spoken clearly in [Wyoming Statute] 14-6-223(c), and it says that the demand must be made ...." The juvenile court concluded JP waived his statutory right to a jury trial by not filing a timely demand, the State had the right to enforce the waiver, and there was no "good reason" not to enforce the waiver.

[¶8] On June 30, 2021, one day before the adjudicatory hearing was scheduled to begin, JP filed a Renewed Motion for a Jury Trial. JP asserted for the first time the demand for a speedy trial contained in his omnibus pleading was a timely jury demand. JP argued he had "an undeniable right" to a jury trial, which he asserted "both through timely demands and by oral requests to the [c]ourt." He asked the juvenile court to honor his "constitutional" right to a jury trial.

[¶9] The juvenile court addressed JP's renewed motion at the beginning of the adjudicatory hearing:

[THE COURT:] Are you claiming that the demand for a speedy trial pursuant to Article 1, Section 10 of the Wyoming Constitution was a demand for a jury trial?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I'm saying that -- excuse me, Your Honor. The argument is that I filed the same demand as I file in all my proceedings which is made pursuant to the Constitution of Wyoming and the Constitution of the United States which allows for a speedy trial for all accused in a criminal proceeding.

THE COURT: And you're aware that the Wyoming Supreme Court has specifically said this is not a criminal proceeding; is that correct? Are you aware of that?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I am aware of that.

THE COURT: So the criminal proceeding, that wouldn't apply, correct?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: However, I'm also aware of the fact that the Wyoming Legislature has said that a juvenile's constitutional rights are protected under the juvenile act, and it is a constitutional right to have a speedy trial.

THE COURT: A speedy trial. My question was much more precise. Is it your claim that what you filed on August 12th, as described in your motion, was a demand for a jury trial?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, Your Honor, that is my claim because that is the demand that the public defender's office always files.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, I find that it was not. It shows, obviously, that – didn't know what was going on, and I'm going to take judicial notice of a case because your office has previously filed specific demands for a jury trial. I'm going to take judicial notice of those. I'm not going to – I'll give you the case number later, but, of course, for confidentiality purposes. And this says that "Come [sic] now, the juvenile, by and through his attorney, Jefferson Coombs, assistant public defender, enters a demand for a jury trial pursuant to Wyoming Statute 14-6-223."

This was signed by another attorney for Mr. Coombs.

So do you wish to be heard on the fact that your office previously has filed clearly –

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, Your Honor,

THE COURT: -- different demands for jury trial?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, Your Honor.

The State renewed its argument JP had waived his right to a jury trial. The juvenile court then offered to allow JP to make a motion to transfer the case to adult court where he would be entitled to a jury trial. JP declined this invitation. The juvenile court found JP's renewed motion was not supported by the law. The juvenile court again held delinquency proceedings were not criminal proceedings, and the jury trial portion of Article 1, § 10 of the Wyoming Constitution only applied in criminal proceedings. It further found the plain language of Wyoming Statute § 14-6-223(c) required a jury demand to be made within ten days of the initial hearing, and JP's failure to file such a demand was a waiver of that right. The juvenile court denied the renewed motion for a jury trial and proceeded to conduct the adjudicatory hearing as a bench trial.

[¶10] After hearing the testimony of nine witnesses, including LH and JP, the juvenile court found the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt JP committed a delinquent act, namely first-degree sexual assault. The juvenile court found the victim's testimony was credible because of "corroborating evidence." The juvenile court stated:

[B]oth of the testimonies, the victim and the juvenile, were corroborative of what all the events leading up to the sexual assault were.

There were minor discrepancies, but these minor discrepancies don't make the victim less credible. Small differences in the amount of time that elapsed are minimal, and those do not make me find the testimony incredible.

What makes me find the testimony most credible is the 911 call and the interaction with Deputy Akers following the event. This is a hysterical victim, who would, for me not to believe this event, would have had to in the space of just a few moments, 10 to 15 minutes ... in the space of 10 to 15 minutes would have had to have concocted an incredible story and built up the ability to make this emotional plea that we see during the events of the two videos.

A more likely

...