P.L.S. v. Juvenile Officer, WD 84977

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Writing for the Court: Alok Ahuja, Judge
• Citation: 651 S.W.3d 885
• Parties: In the Interest of: P.L.S., Appellant, v. JUVENILE OFFICER, Respondent.
• Docket Number: WD 84977
• Decision Date: 06 September 2022

651 S.W.3d 885

In the Interest of: P.L.S., Appellant,
v.
JUVENILE OFFICER, Respondent.

WD 84977

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: September 6, 2022

Jeffrey C. Esparza, Kansas City for appellant.

Troy L. Dietrich, Cameron, for respondent.

Before Division One: Janet Sutton, P.J., and Alok Ahuja and Karen King Mitchell, JJ.

Alok Ahuja, Judge

651 S.W.3d 887

P.L.S. is a juvenile born in 2005. P.L.S. appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Livingston County which committed him to the custody of the Division of Youth Services, based on his admission that he had committed acts of delinquency. P.L.S. argues that the circuit court plainly erred when it failed to make an adequate record, and failed to make findings, that his admission of delinquency was knowing and voluntary, or that there was an adequate factual basis for his admissions. P.L.S. also argues that the circuit court could not have found a factual basis for his admission of one of the two offenses alleged by the Juvenile Officer, because it was impossible for him to commit that offense. Because we find that the circuit court plainly erred in accepting P.L.S.’s admission of an offense he could not have committed, we vacate the circuit court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Factual Background

On April 19, 2021, the Juvenile Officer for Livingston County filed a petition in the circuit court alleging that P.L.S. was absent from school repeatedly without justification and that P.L.S. disobeyed the reasonable and lawful directions of his parents or custodians, and was beyond their control.

P.L.S. admitted the allegations in the April 2021 petition. On May 5, 2021, at the conclusion of a dispositional hearing, the circuit court ordered that P.L.S. be committed to the custody of the Division of Youth Services. The court stayed its commitment order and placed P.L.S. on probation under the supervision of the Juvenile Office. The court ordered that P.L.S. attend school daily and complete assigned school work; perform 50 hours of community service; and attend counseling and therapy. The court memorialized its dispositional order in a judgment entered on May 20, 2021.

The Juvenile Officer filed a motion to modify the circuit court's dispositional order on May 21, 2021, and an amended motion to modify on October 28, 2021. The amended motion alleged that,

[i]n violation of Section 211.431, RSMo.: [P.L.S.] committed the Class A Misdemeanor of Violation of the Law, if he were an adult, in that on or between May 6, 2021, and May 17, 2021, ... [P.L.S.] willfully violated, neglected, or refused to obey a lawful order of the Court.

The amended motion also alleged that, between the same dates, P.L.S. committed acts which were injurious to his welfare, in violation of § 211.031.1(2)(d),¹ by failing to attend the full school day at his high school, and by failing to complete assigned school work.

On November 5, 2021, the circuit court held a hearing on the amended motion to modify. At the outset of the hearing, the parties discussed whether P.L.S. was contesting the Juvenile Officer's allegations.

Juvenile Officer: ... [I]t's my understanding in speaking to opposing counsel,

651 S.W.3d 888

that with regards to the hearing today they are willing to consent, or admit, to the adjudication portion with regards to the allegations set forth in the amended motion to modify; and then the hearing today will just be with regards to disposition.

The Court: I see. Is that correct?

P.L.S.’s counsel: That is correct, sir.

The Court: All right. We'll proceed on that basis, then.

The court proceeded directly to a dispositional hearing. During the disposition hearing, four witnesses testified regarding P.L.S.’s absences from school; his failure to consistently pay attention in class and complete assigned school work; his diagnoses for Oppositional Defiance Disorder and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder; and the medications he had been prescribed to address those conditions. P.L.S. also made a statement to the court, in which he told the court that he was "taking [his] medication as needed" and had already "see[n] a difference in" himself; that he was working on improving his school attendance and performance; and that he had researched available community service and work opportunities.

At the conclusion of the disposition hearing, the circuit court entered its judgment ordering that P.L.S. be committed to the custody of the Division of Youth Services for placement in a Division facility for an indeterminate period of time. The judgment found, based on P.L.S.’s admissions, that he had "willfully violated, neglected, or refused to obey a lawful order of the court," in violation of § 211.431. The judgment also found that P.L.S. had violated § 211.031.1(2)(d), by engaging in behaviors which were "injurious to his welfare or to the welfare of others," by failing to attend school and complete assigned course work. The circuit court's judgment found that "the necessary care cannot be furnished by placing the juvenile in his own home, but requires the care, custody and discipline of a facility of the Division of Youth Services, because suitable community-based treatment services would not be appropriate in this matter."

P.L.S. appeals.

Standard of Review

The parties agree that P.L.S. did not preserve his appellate arguments in the circuit court, and that we review solely for plain error. "Plain errors affecting substantial rights may be considered on appeal, in the discretion of the court, though not raised or preserved, when the court finds that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom." Rule 84.13(c).

The first step in the plain error process is to determine whether the juvenile court committed a plain error that is evident, obvious and clear. If so, the second step is to determine whether the error resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice.

In re J.L.T. , 441 S.W.3d 183, 186 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) ; accord , In re Adoption of C.M.B.R. , 332 S.W.3d 793, 809 (Mo. 2011).²

Discussion

P.L.S. argues that the circuit court committed error that was evident, obvious, and clear when it did not make an adequate record, or make adequate findings, that his admission of the Juvenile Officer's allegations was knowing and voluntary, and that there was a factual basis for P.L.S.’s admissions. P.L.S. also argues that the circuit

651 S.W.3d 889

court could not have found an adequate factual basis for one of the offenses he admitted committing, because he could not meet the age restriction contained in the statutory definition of the offense. Finally, P.L.S. argues that these errors resulted in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice because he could not have committed the age-restricted offense, and the circuit court considered the age-restricted offense in entering its dispositional order and depriving him of his liberty.

Based on P.L.S.’s admissions, the circuit court found that he was delinquent on two grounds: (1) that he had committed acts which were injurious to his welfare by failing to attend school and/or complete assigned schoolwork, in violation of § 211.031.1(2)(d); and (2) that he had violated § 211.431 by "willfully violat[ing], neglect[ing], or refus[ing] to obey a lawful order of the Court."

The circuit court committed evident, obvious, and clear error in accepting P.L.S.’s admission of a violation of § 211.431 because in order to find that P.L.S. violated the statute, the court had to conclude that there was a factual basis for the violation. See Rule 128.02(d)(3) (requiring court to find "whether a basis in fact exists for the juvenile's admissions"). P.L.S. could not have violated § 211.431, however, because he did not meet the age requirement explicitly included as an element...