State ex rel. W.B.
| Decision Date | 07 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2016–CA–0642,2016–CA–0642 |
| Citation | 206 So.3d 974 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
| Parties | STATE IN the INTEREST OF W.B. |
206 So.3d 974
STATE IN the INTEREST OF W.B.
NO. 2016–CA–0642
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
DECEMBER 7, 2016
Katherine M. Franks, LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT, P.O. Box 1677, Abita Springs, LA 70420, COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
Leon A. Cannizzaro, Jr., District Attorney, Donna R. Andrieu, Assistant District Attorney, Donald G. Cassells, III, Assistant District Attorney, PARISH OF ORLEANS, 619 South White Street, New Orleans, LA 70119, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE
(Court composed of Chief Judge James F. McKay, III, Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Rosemary Ledet )
Judge Rosemary Ledet
This is a juvenile delinquency case. The juvenile, W.B.,1 appeals his adjudication as a delinquent and his disposition. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the adjudication but vacate the disposition and remand for a disposition hearing.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
On or about October 16, 2015, Aimee Keife's residence in New Orleans, Louisiana
was burglarized. Immediately thereafter, she reported the burglary to the New Orleans Police Department ("NOPD"). By the time she needed to leave for work, the police had not arrived; thus, she canceled the call.
Thereafter, Ms. Keife's home surveillance camera recorded two individuals attempting to break into her home. On October 21, 2015, Ms. Keife was leaving her home when she saw one of the individuals from the surveillance video—later identified as W.B.—entering her neighbor's house, using a key. Ms. Keife immediately called the NOPD.
NOPD Detectives Serife Davis and Daniel Hyatt promptly were dispatched to Ms. Keife's residence. Ms. Keife provided the detectives with the surveillance video, and she identified W.B. as one of the individuals in the surveillance video.2 The detectives apprehended W.B., handcuffed him, and placed him in the back of their patrol car. After W.B. was placed in the patrol car, his father, W.B., Sr., approached the car and explained to his son that the detectives had photographs showing W.B. looking through Ms. Keife's door.3 Meanwhile, one of the detectives asked W.B. if they were going to find any of the stolen items in his bedroom in W.B., Sr.'s residence.4 W.B., Sr., instructed the detectives to show the photograph to W.B. After being shown the photograph and confronted again by his father, W.B. admitted that he was one of the individuals in the photograph. Shortly after the confession, one of the detectives asked W.B. if the clothes he was wearing in the photograph were in his bedroom. W.B. responded that the clothes were at his sister's house, which was where he was primarily residing.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 4, 2015, the State filed a petition charging W.B. with simple burglary, in violation of La. R.S. 14:62. According to the State's petition, on October 21, 2015, W.B. entered Ms. Keife's house without authorization with the intent to commit a theft or felony therein. W.B. pleaded not guilty.
On November 10, 2015, W.B. filed an "Omnibus Motion for Discovery; Motion to Preserve Evidence; and Motion for Suppression of Statements, Evidence, and Identifications." The district court set the motion to suppress and the adjudication hearing for February 2, 2016.
After several continuances, the adjudication hearing occurred on May 3, 2016.5 At the adjudication hearing, four witnesses testified—Ms. Keife; Detective Davis; W.B., Sr.; and Detective Hyatt. At the conclusion of the hearing, W.B. was adjudicated delinquent as a result of having committed attempted simple burglary, a violation of La. R.S. 14:27 and 14:62.6 The district court ordered W.B. to serve six
months, suspended, with active supervised probation for one year with the following special conditions.7 This appeal followed.
ERROR PATENT
Recently, this court adopted a practice of conducting an error patent review in juvenile delinquency cases. See State in the Interest of S.J. , 13–1025, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/6/13), 129 So.3d 676, 679 (citing State in the Interest of A.H. , 10–1673, p. 9 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/20/11), 65 So.3d 679, 685 ). A review of the record for errors patent in this case reveals one. The district court failed to conduct a disposition hearing.
Louisiana Children's Code Article 892 provides, "[p]rior to entering a judgment of disposition, the court shall conduct a disposition hearing. The disposition hearing may be conducted immediately after the adjudication and shall be conducted within thirty days after the adjudication. Such period may be extended for good cause." Furthermore, La. Ch.C. art. 893 provides in pertinent part as follows:
A. At the disposition hearing, unless the child waives the presentation, the court shall hear evidence as to whether the child is in need of treatment or rehabilitation and shall make and file its findings.
B. All evidence helpful in determining the proper disposition, including oral and written reports, the report of the predisposition investigation, any reports of mental evaluation, and all other evidence offered by the child or the state shall be received by the court and may be relied upon to the extent of its probative value even though not admissible at the adjudication hearing. Upon motion of the district attorney or the child, the court may hear testimony from the victim of the offense.
C. Counsel for the state and for the child shall be afforded an opportunity to present evidence and to examine and controvert written reports so received and to cross-examine individuals preparing the reports or other witnesses who give testimony at the hearing. Sources of confidential information need not be disclosed.
This court has held that "[t]he purpose of a disposition hearing is to allow the court to hear evidence which will aid it in determining whether the juvenile is in need of treatment or rehabilitation." State in Interest of T.E. , 11–1172, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/19/12), 100 So.3d 963, 964 (citing State ex rel. K.H., 98–632 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/16/98), 725 So.2d 583 ). "Absent a waiver by the juvenile, the court must conduct a hearing prior to entering a judgment of disposition." Id. (citing
State ex rel. K.G. , 34,535 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/24/01), 778 So.2d 716 ; State in Interest of O.R. , 96–890, p. 6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/25/97), 690 So.2d 200, 202 ). Counsel's silence and failure to object does not amount to a waiver of a juvenile's right to a disposition hearing or his right to present evidence. State in Interest of O.R. , 96–890 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/25/97), 690 So.2d 200 ; and K.G. , 34,535 at p. 15, 778 So.2d at 726 ; see also State in Interest of T.H. , 14–179 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/4/14, 18), 140 So.3d 911, 923 (finding that "there was no objection or waiver of the objection, and there was no waiver of the disposition hearing" by the juvenile; thus the matter was remanded).
After W.B. was adjudicated a delinquent, the following colloquy occurred between defense counsel and the district court judge:
THE COURT:
Regardless of any of that I am adjudicating you delinquent of that offense, okay. I don't know if you want to waive delays.
MS. FELIX [DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL]:
No, I'm just asking if you can identify him when you say this one doesn't look like him.
* * *
THE COURT:
... So do we want me to give his disposition? Do you waive delays?
MS. FELIX:
Note my objection.
THE COURT:
Okay, I'll note your objection.
MS. FELIX:
To the adjudication.
THE COURT:
Ok, I will note your objection. It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that [W.B.] is a juvenile for proper placement with the Office of Juvenile Justice. You are hereby placed with the Office of Juvenile Justice for six months. Execution of this commitment is suspended. You are going to be on one year of active probation.
Accordingly, defense counsel did not waive W.B.'s right to present evidence at a disposition hearing. Consequently, we find that the disposition must be vacated and the matter remanded for a disposition hearing in accordance with La. Ch.C. arts. 892 and 893.
DISCUSSION
W.B. raises several issues on appeal.8 For ease of discussion, we divide the issues presented into the following four parts: (i) admissibility of W.B.'s statements; (ii) harmless error; (iii) motion to suppress; and (iv) judgment of disposition. We address each part separately.
Admissibility of W.B.'s statements
W.B. contends that the district court erred in admitting W.B.'s statements into evidence because the State failed to establish his statements were made freely and voluntarily in compliance with La. Ch.C. art. 881.1.9 W.B. asserts, and the State
does not dispute, that he was not advised of his Miranda rights10 before making inculpatory statements. W.B. further contends that the detectives arranged the situation between W.B. and his father in order to elicit the confession. W.B. argues that his admission was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brazell
... ... (citing State ex rel. Melinie v. State , 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172 ( per curiam ) ). "Moreover, ... there is no post-conviction review available for ... ...
- State ex rel. G.S.
-
A.M. v. State
... ... App. 2016) (applying two-pronged Strickland test in assessing counsel's performance during juvenile delinquency adjudication hearing); State ex rel. K.M.T. , 18 So.3d 183, 192 (La. Ct. App. 2009) (noting Gault 's distinction between adjudication phase and disposition phase in juvenile proceedings ... ...
- State v. Kinard