Kaundra C., In Interest of, 2347
| Decision Date | 30 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 2347,2347 |
| Citation | 458 S.E.2d 443,318 S.C. 484 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In the Interest of KAUNDRA C., a minor under the age of seventeen years, Appellant. |
Chief Atty. Daniel T. Stacey, of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Asst. Atty. Gen. Alexandria B. Skinner, and Sol. Richard A. Harpootlian, Columbia, for respondent.
Kaundra C. appeals her sentence following a guilty plea to the charge of contempt for violation of a family court order. Kaundra C. argues the family court improperly waived a reception and evaluation (R & E) period at the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) as required by statute before sentencing. We vacate that portion of the sentence which committed Kaundra C. to DJJ.
On January 20, 1993, Kaundra received a sentence of probation and community service after she was adjudicated delinquent for shoplifting. On February 17 of that year, Kaundra C. was again adjudicated delinquent for carrying a weapon to school. She again received a sentence of probation and community service. This probationary period ended on September 24, 1993. Kaundra C. was committed to DJJ for an evaluation each time before sentencing.
On April 22, 1994, Kaundra C. pleaded guilty to contempt charges for violation of a juvenile court order requiring school attendance. She received a determinate sentence of five months and thirty days with probation and community service. At the hearing, the family court waived evaluation at the R & E center prior to imposing the sentence. The family court denied Kaundra C.'s motion for reconsideration, which asked that she be placed in the R & E center pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7-2170 (Supp.1994).
The State argues the issue of sentencing is moot because Kaundra C. has already served the determinate sentence. We must first address this threshold question of mootness.
This court will not issue advisory opinions on questions for which no meaningful relief can be granted. Jones v. Dillon-Marion Human Resources Dev. Comm'n, 277 S.C. 533, 291 S.E.2d 195 (1982). However, if the issue presented is "capable of repetition but evading review," we will address it. In the Matter of Angela Suzanne C., 286 S.C. 186, 332 S.E.2d 542 (Ct.App.1985). The "capable of repetition but evading review" doctrine is limited to situations in which (1) the challenged action was too short in its duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again. Id. at 189, 332 S.E.2d at 544 (citing Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 95 S.Ct. 553, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975)).
The first element of the doctrine is clearly satisfied. The inquiry thus becomes whether there is a reasonable expectation Kaundra C. may be subjected to the same action again. The action of which Kaundra C. complains is the imposition of a sentence of commitment to DJJ without the benefit of a temporary commitment for evaluation. Kaundra C. is sixteen years old and has been involved in the juvenile justice system since the end of 1992. With her current sentence, she will be on probation until she is eighteen. Should another violation of probation or of law occur, she will be faced with another adjudication. Under these circumstances it is reasonable to expect she may again be subjected to the alleged improper sentencing procedure. We therefore conclude the issue is not moot, and we will address the merits of her appeal.
S.C.Code Ann. § 20-7-2170 provides in pertinent part:
The court, before committing a child as a delinquent or as a part of a sentence including commitments for contempt, shall first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Byrd v. Irmo High School
...463 S.E.2d 90 (1995) (Davis Adv.Sh. No. 22 at 33); In re John Doe, 318 S.C. 527, 458 S.E.2d 556 (Ct.App.1995); In re Kaundra C., 318 S.C. 484, 458 S.E.2d 443 (Ct.App.1995); Howard v. Bibbs, 287 S.C. 636, 340 S.E.2d 566 (Ct.App.1986); In re Angela Suzanne C., 286 S.C. 186, 332 S.E.2d 542 Oth......
- State v. Simpson
-
North Charleston Sewer Dist. v. Berkeley Cnty.
... ... controversy for which meaningful relief can be granted ... In the Interest of Kaundra C., 318 S.C. 484, 486, ... 458 S.E.2d 443, 444 (Ct. App. 1995) (This court will ... ...