State in Interest of Newton
| Decision Date | 21 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. KJ,KJ |
| Citation | 559 So.2d 801 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of Aneko L. NEWTON. 89 1042. 559 So.2d 801 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Darlene Simmons, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee State.
James Best, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant Aneko L. Newton.
Before EDWARDS, LANIER and FOIL, JJ.
Aneko L. Newton was charged by petition as delinquent on the basis of commission of purse snatching, a violation of La.R.S. 14:65.1. Although the record is not absolutely clear, it appears that, pursuant to a plea agreement, the petition was amended in writing on February 11, 1988, to charge accessory after the fact to purse snatching. See La.R.S. 14:25 and 65.1. However, the agreement did not bear fruit; and the trial judge ordered that the juvenile be tried on the original charge. Additionally, the case was transferred to another judge.
On July 1, 1988, the state orally amended the petition to charge two counts of purse snatching in violation of La.R.S. 14:65.1. After an adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile was found to be delinquent based upon both counts of the orally charged criminal conduct. Following a disposition hearing, the juvenile was committed to the custody of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections for each offense until age eighteen years. However, the commitments were suspended; and the juvenile was placed on supervised probation for a period not to exceed her eighteenth birthday.
The juvenile now appeals, urging several arguments before this Court. However, we pretermit discussion of those issues due to the existence of error patent requiring the reversal of the adjudications and dispositions. 1
In State in Interest of Batiste, 367 So.2d 784, 787 (La.1979), the Court stated:
Because a juvenile who is alleged to have committed a serious crime is confronted with consequences not essentially different from those faced by adult criminal defendants ... he is clearly entitled under the due process and adequate notice guarantees of our state constitution to be given timely written notice, in advance of the adjudicatory hearing, of the specific charge or factual allegations to be considered and the specific issues he must meet. La. Const.1974, art. 1, Secs. 2, 13; see State of Louisiana in the Interest of Andrew Leonard Dino, 359 So.2d 586 (La.1978). [Emphasis added.]
Moreover, articles 47 and 48 of the Code of Juvenile Procedure set forth the required form and content of a juvenile petition. Although these provisions do not expressly require that the petition must be written, there can be no doubt that such is the case; the requisites set forth in these articles that the petition "contain" and "set forth" certain information indicate beyond any doubt that the petition must be written.
Just as an adult criminal is entitled to written notice of the charges against him, 2 the Louisiana Supreme Court stated in Batiste that a juvenile charged as delinquent on the basis of criminal conduct is also entitled to the same written notice. Due process requires no less.
Herein, the petition originally charged one count of purse snatching. It was amended in writing to charge accessory after the fact to purse snatching. There was no subsequent written amendment to reinstate the original charge. 3 Nor was there a written amendment to add a second count of purse snatching. Therefore, the adjudications of delinquency and dispositions based on both counts of purse snatching are vacated.
ADJUDICATIONS AND DISPOSITIONS VACATED.
LANIER, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
I dissent from the majority opinion because (1) it does not contain a complete statement of pertinent facts; (2) it uses a patent error review as provided for in La.C.Cr.P. art. 920, which is contrary to La.C.J.P. arts. 24 and 97 and La.C.Cr.P. art. 15; and (3) it applies hypertechnical pleading (notice) requirements of criminal proceedings to these juvenile delinquency proceedings contrary to La. Const. of 1974, art. I, Sec. 19, La.C.J.P. arts. 24, 47, 48 and 50, La.C.Cr.P. art. 15 and La.C.C.P. arts. 1154 and 1635.
For the reasons assigned in State in Interest of Handy, 559 So.2d 795 (La.App. 1st Cir.1990), I do not agree that juvenile delinquency proceedings are subject to a patent error review, as provided for in La.C.Cr.P. art. 920.
By written petition filed January 28, 1988, the juvenile was charged with being a delinquent child by committing purse snatching from "3 different females" in violation of La.R.S. 14:65.1. La.C.J.P. arts. 47 and 48. On February 22, 1988, the juvenile, through her court appointed counsel, orally denied the allegations of the petition. La.C.J.P. art. 55. The trial of this case was fixed for March 21, 1988. The minute entry for March 21, 1988, shows that "[P]lea bargain fell through," and the trial was continued to April 11, 1988. On April 11, 1988 the State amended the petition in writing to plead one offense of accessory after the fact to simple robbery, in violation of La.R.S. 14:25 and 65. La.C.J.P. art. 50. Apparently there were plea bargain negotiations. The minute entry for April 11, 1988, shows the following:
On motion of Mr. Best, Judge Moseley recussed [sic] himself from this case after the previously arranged plea bargain fell apart in Court. The case was reallotted [sic] Division "A" and scheduled for appearance hearing on April 15, 1988 at 10:00 a.m.
Further, the trial on petition 60,667 was passed by consent and reassigned for May 2, 1988 at 1:30 p.m.
Judge Moseley wrote the following on the face of the petition and signed it:
The petition was amended on motion of the D.A. pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. However, the agreement broke down. The Court ordered that the juvenile be tried on the original charge, and recused itself and ordered that the case be allotted to another Division. (Emphasis added)
On April 15, 1988, the juvenile again orally denied the allegations of the petition, and the case was set for trial on July 1, 1988.
The following is the written minute entry for July 1, 1988, which was made in this case:
FRIDAY, JULY 1, 1988
STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF ANEKO
Trial passed to September 9, 1988 at 1:30 p.m. on motion of the Assistant District Attorney.
Further, the petition was amended to change the allegation in Count # 1 to read as follows:
Further, Count # 2 was added to the petition as follows: "Said juvenile violated La.R.S. 14:65.1 in that she did commit a theft of property contained in a purse or wallet from the person or in the control of Norma Lord by use of force or intimidation without being armed with a dangerous weapon. Said offense occurred in the Parish of East Baton Rouge.
Although this minute entry was reduced to writing, it was not physically placed on the petition.
On September 9, 1988, by joint motion of counsel for the State and counsel for the juvenile, the trial was continued to December 9, 1988. On February 17, 1989 the case went to trial. At no time did the juvenile object to the fact that the petition itself was not amended in writing to reflect the contents of the written minute entry. The juvenile did not seek a continuance of the February 17, 1989 trial date. The transcript of the trial reflects a vigorous and competent defense by the juvenile's counsel to both counts of purse snatching. No claim of surprise, or any other type of prejudice, has been asserted in the trial court, or this court, about going to trial on the two counts of purse snatching.
La. Const. of 1974, art. V, Sec. 19 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
The determination of guilt or innocence, the detention, and the custody of a person who is alleged to have committed a crime prior to his seventeenth birthday shall be pursuant to special juvenile procedures which shall be provided by law. (Emphasis added)
The legislative branch of Louisiana state government has exercised this power by enacting the Code of Juvenile Procedure. Acts 1978, No. 172.
This is a juvenile proceeding concerning the delinquency of a child. La.C.J.P. art. 13(7), (9), (12) and (17). Article 24 of the Code of Juvenile Procedure provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
The provisions of this Code, except as otherwise specially provided in the law being applied, shall govern and regulate the proceedings of courts exercising juvenile jurisdiction. (Emphasis added)
When the word shall is used in the Code of Juvenile Procedure, it is mandatory. La.C.J.P. art. 4.
The form and content of petitions in juvenile cases are provided for in La.C.J.P. arts. 47 and 48. La.C.J.P. art. 47(D), pertaining to the form of a petition, provides as follows:
Failure to comply with formal requirements of this Article shall not be grounds for dismissal of a petition or invalidation of the proceedings unless it results in substantial prejudice. (Emphasis added)
La.C.J.P. art. 50(C), pertaining to amendments to petitions, provides as follows:
If a petition is amended prior to the adjudication hearing to include new allegations of fact or requests for adjudication, the child may request a continuance of the adjudication hearing. A continuance may be granted for such period as is required in the interest of justice.
La.C.J.P. art. 24 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Where procedures are not provided in this Code, or otherwise by law, the court shall proceed in accordance with:
(1) The Code of Criminal Procedure in a criminal trial of an adult; or
(2) The Code of Civil Procedure in all...
To continue reading
Request your trial