M.L.H. v. Juvenile Officer

Decision Date19 October 2021
Docket NumberWD 84193
Citation634 S.W.3d 667
Parties In the Matter of: M.L.H., Appellant, v. JUVENILE OFFICER, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Jeffrey C. Esparza, Kansas City, for appellant.

Shariece L. Canaday, St. Joseph, for respondent.

Before Division Two: Mark D. Pfeiffer, P.J., and Alok Ahuja and Anthony Rex Gabbert, JJ.

Alok Ahuja, Judge

M.L.H. is a juvenile. The Circuit Court of Buchanan County entered a judgment finding that she committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the felony of tampering with electronic monitoring equipment, in violation of § 575.205,1 and the misdemeanor of assault in the fourth degree, in violation of § 565.056.1. M.L.H. appeals. With respect to her adjudication for assault, M.L.H. argues that the circuit court applied the incorrect legal standard in determining that she had acted recklessly. She also argues that the court's finding that she had not acted in self-defense was against the weight of the evidence. With respect to the adjudication for tampering with electronic monitoring equipment, M.L.H. argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that she had been required by court order to wear such equipment.

We affirm.

Factual Background

In June 2020, the Juvenile Officer filed a petition accusing M.L.H., who was then fourteen years old, of committing acts which would constitute felony stealing and misdemeanor domestic assault in the fourth degree, if committed by an adult. M.L.H. admitted the allegations on June 18, 2020. The circuit court took jurisdiction over M.L.H., placed her on probation in the custody of her legal guardian (her aunt), and required M.L.H. to take part in an electronic monitoring program. The court imposed an additional term of electronic monitoring on August 24, 2020.

On September 10, 2020, the Juvenile Officer filed a motion to modify the court's previous dispositional order, alleging that M.L.H. had since committed acts which would constitute the felony of tampering with electronic monitoring equipment in violation of § 575.205 (Count I), and the status offense of habitual absence from the home, in violation of § 211.031.1(2)(c) (Count II). On September 14, 2020, the circuit court ordered that M.L.H. be placed in a juvenile detention facility pending resolution of the motion to modify.

While in juvenile detention in Buchanan County, M.L.H. assaulted Brenae’ Tate, a detention aide, on September 29, 2020. The Juvenile Officer filed a first amended motion to modify, adding an allegation that M.L.H. committed the misdemeanor of assault in the fourth degree, in violation of § 565.056.1(1) (Count III) by "recklessly caus[ing] physical pain to [Tate] by striking her multiple times."

The circuit court held an adjudication hearing on November 18, 2020. M.L.H.’s aunt testified that on September 3, 2020, M.L.H. had been on house arrest, but left to spend time with a friend. When M.L.H. failed to return home, her aunt made a runaway report with the St. Joseph Police Department. M.L.H.’s aunt testified that M.L.H. was required to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet at the time, and that she was wearing the bracelet when her aunt last saw her. However, when M.L.H. was found on September 9, 2020, she was no longer wearing her monitoring bracelet. Her aunt testified that M.L.H. told her that someone had cut the bracelet off, and told her aunt the general area where the bracelet could be found.

Brenae’ Tate, the victim of M.L.H.’s assault, testified that she was a detention aide at the Buchanan County facility where M.L.H. was detained. Tate testified that around 8:45 p.m. on September 29, 2020, she was bringing around a cart of hygiene products to M.L.H. and the other three female residents of the facility. The hygiene bags Tate was distributing included toothpaste and a toothbrush, deodorant, and a hairbrush. When Tate entered the detention dayroom with the cart, M.L.H. appeared agitated and was kicking the dayroom door.

One of the other detention-facility residents, R.M., testified that M.L.H. had requested feminine hygiene products from Tate, but that Tate took approximately two hours to bring the hygiene cart into the dayroom, and did not bring any feminine hygiene products with her. For her part, Tate testified that she did not recall anyone making a request for feminine hygiene products.

While Tate was handing another resident her hygiene bag, M.L.H. attempted to grab her own bag from the cart. Tate told M.L.H. not to touch anything on the cart, and proceeded to distribute the other hygiene bags and put the residents in their cells for the night. While Tate was putting another resident in her cell, M.L.H. pushed the hygiene cart over. Tate tried to give M.L.H. her hygiene bag and put her in her cell, but M.L.H. repeatedly refused to go in.

Tate closed M.L.H.’s cell door and attempted to exit the dayroom. M.L.H. blocked the dayroom door and the intercom console, preventing Tate from exiting or summoning help. Tate asked M.L.H. to move, but she refused. When M.L.H. did not move out of the way following Tate's second request, Tate pushed M.L.H. to the side to gain access to the door and intercom. When Tate pushed M.L.H., she had one hand near M.L.H.’s head and another on her arm.

In response to being pushed, M.L.H. grabbed Tate's hair and began punching her in the head and in the ribs. Tate grabbed M.L.H.’s hair, stating it "was the only way [she] could try to get [M.L.H.] to stop." Tate testified that at some point, someone in the control room must have opened the dayroom door because she and M.L.H. fell through the door into the hallway. M.L.H. was then on top of Tate, still punching her, and banging Tate's head on the ground. Tate testified that M.L.H. "wouldn't get off me. She kept telling me to let go of her hair, but I told her to let go of my hair." M.L.H. "let go of [Tate's] hair[,] all while still punching [her]." Tate attempted to get out from under M.L.H., but was unsuccessful. Ultimately, another resident, D.S., was let out of her cell, and pulled M.L.H. off of Tate.

Following the altercation, Tate had pain in her back and ribs, bruising, a headache that lasted multiple days, and a swollen eye.

A surveillance video of the altercation was admitted in evidence at the adjudication hearing.

The circuit found the allegations of Counts I-III of the Juvenile Officer's motion to modify were true, and set a disposition hearing for the next day. After the disposition hearing, the court ordered that M.L.H. be committed to the Buchanan County Academy.

M.L.H. appeals. While this appeal was pending, M.L.H. was released from the Buchanan County Academy, and placed on probation.

Discussion
I.

We first consider the Juvenile Officer's claim that M.L.H.’s appeal is moot, because M.L.H. has been released from the juvenile detention facility and placed on probation.

While M.L.H.’s appeal was pending, the Juvenile Officer filed a request for M.L.H.’s release in March 2021. The circuit court granted the motion, and M.L.H. was released from the detention facility, placed in her legal guardian's custody, and put on probation supervised by the Juvenile Officer.

"An issue is moot if our resolution of a matter on appeal in the appellant's favor would have no practical effect." Westcott v. State , 361 S.W.3d 468, 472 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (citation omitted). "When an event occurs that makes a decision on appeal unnecessary or makes it impossible for the appellate court to grant effectual relief, the appeal is moot and generally should be dismissed." STRCUE, Inc. v. Potts , 386 S.W.3d 214, 218 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (citation omitted)

Although M.L.H. has been released from the juvenile detention facility, due to the circuit court's adjudication she remains subject to the jurisdiction of the court, and is on supervised probation. The fact that M.L.H. remains on probation and supervision prevents this appeal from becoming moot, because a decision in M.L.H.’s favor would have the effect of freeing her from the restrictions and supervision which are incidents of her probation. See In re G.D.G. , 485 S.W.2d 449, 452 (Mo. App. 1972) ; cf. State ex rel. Nixon v. Kelly , 58 S.W.3d 513, 515 n.2 (Mo. 2001) (finding that an appeal was not moot where the defendant was on parole, which could be revoked). Further, even if M.L.H. were no longer subject to supervision, a live controversy would nevertheless exist due to "the discredit and stigma associated with [M.L.H.’s] record of adjudication," and the potential future consequences of that adjudication. D.C.M. v. Pemiscot Cnty. Juv. Office , 578 S.W.3d 776, 781-82 (Mo. 2019).

II.

In her first Point, M.L.H. argues that the circuit court erred in finding that she committed acts which would constitute fourth-degree assault, because the court applied an erroneous interpretation of "recklessness." M.L.H. argues a determination of "recklessness" required a subjective inquiry into her "specific circumstances" – in this case, Tate's refusal to supply M.L.H. with feminine hygiene products, as well as M.L.H.’s past childhood trauma. The circuit court rejected M.L.H.’s arguments, explaining that

"recklessly" is not based on [a] subjective standard. It's based on a reasonable person standard, ... what a reasonable person would [do] at 14 years old. I don't think a reasonable person 14 years old, applying that standard, in juvenile detention being told by a staff member to remove themselves from the doorway ... that they have the right then when they're physically trying to move them so that the staff member can either call for help or leave the dayroom that that justifies her assaulting the staff member.

"Juvenile proceedings are reviewed ‘in the same manner as other court-tried cases.’ " D.C.M , 578 S.W.3d at 786 (citation omitted). "We will, therefore, affirm a judgment in a juvenile proceeding ‘unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT