State of N.M. ex rel. Cyfd v. Paul G.

• Decision Date: 06 February 2006
• Docket Number: No. 25,090.,No. 25,321.,25,090.,25,321.
• Citation: 131 P.3d 108,2006 NMCA 038
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico
• Parties: STATE of NEW MEXICO, CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAUL G., Child-Appellee.

131 P.3d 108

2006 NMCA 038

STATE of NEW MEXICO, CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAUL G., Child-Appellee.

No. 25,090.

No. 25,321.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

February 6, 2006.

Corrected April 4, 2006.

Patricia A. Madrid, Attorney General, Arthur W. Pepin, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant.

John Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Santa Fe, NM, Meg Bailey, Assistant Appellate Defender, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee.

OPINION

BUSTAMANTE, Chief Judge.

{1} This case requires us to decide whether the Delinquency Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 32A-2-1 to -33 (1993, as amended through 2005) (the Act) authorizes the children's court, pursuant to a plea agreement, to commit a child who has been adjudicated delinquent to the legal custody of the Children Youth & Families Department (CYFD) for an indeterminate period up to the age of eighteen. Because we find no statutory authority for this disposition, we reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND

{2} A petition alleging that Paul G. (Child) committed a delinquent act and was in need of care or rehabilitation was filed in children's court on April 21, 2003. Child was charged with willful and deliberate murder and conspiracy to commit murder. At the time of his arraignment, Child was twelve years old. On November 13, 2003, Child entered into a plea agreement in which he pled no contest to aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit second-degree murder. There was no agreement as to disposition "except that sentence shall not run past Child's 18th birthday." After a hearing, the children's court accepted the plea and ordered a pre-disposition report to be prepared.

{3} At the dispositional hearing on December 16, 2003, the juvenile probation officer (JPO) recommended on behalf of CYFD that the children's court commit Child to CYFD until the age of eighteen. The JPO noted that Child lacked interest in treatment, had refused to apologize to the victim's family, demonstrated suicidal and homicidal tendencies, and had dropped out of school after a series of behavioral problems. After stating that Child posed a risk to the community and himself, the JPO presented commitment to CYFD as a way for Child to receive 24-hour supervision and access to mental health and educational services. Also concerned about Child's lack of remorse, the children's court attorney recommended that Child be committed to the age of eighteen in order to protect the community. Child's attorney argued that Child should receive probation so that Child could continue treatment he had started a week earlier at an adolescent treatment facility or in the alternative the dispositional hearing should be continued. Based on Child's poor upbringing and lack of stability and supervision at home, the children's court found Child a significant danger to himself and to others. The children's court stated that it believed in treatment, but that it did not feel comfortable putting Child on probation. The children's court entered a disposition committing Child to the custody of CYFD until the age of eighteen, with a recommendation that CYFD seek treatment for Child at a secure juvenile treatment facility.

{4} After CYFD was unable to place Child at the recommended treatment facility, Child filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the disposition. At the hearing on Child's motion to reconsider, the JPO requested a hearing on behalf of CYFD regarding Child's commitment to the age of eighteen, noting for the first time that the disposition was not specified in the Children's Code, NMSA 1978, §§ 32A-1-1 to -23-8 (1993, as amended through 2005) (Code). After denying Child's motion, the children's court entered an amended judgment and disposition. In the amended judgment and disposition, the children's court declared Child a delinquent child instead of a youthful offender, excluded the recommendation that Child be placed at the treatment facility, and modified the language of the commitment from "an indeterminate period not exceeding 18 years of age" to read "an indeterminate period not exceeding up to the age of 18."

{5} On April 13, 2004, the children's court heard CYFD's motion to clarify the judgment and disposition. CYFD argued that the children's court only had statutory authority to enter a disposition committing Child to CYFD for one year, two years, or until the age of twenty-one because Child in this case had committed a youthful offender offense, and that it had no authority to commit Child to CYFD until age eighteen. In response, the children's court explained that the judgment and disposition was consistent with the plea agreement, and that under the Code the children's court only had jurisdiction until age eighteen because Child was not a youthful offender. After commenting that CYFD's motion was inappropriate, the children's court denied it. CYFD timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

{6} On appeal, CYFD argues that Child's commitment to the age of eighteen is unlawful and that the Delinquency Act only authorizes a commitment to age twenty-one in these circumstances. After first challenging CYFD's standing to appeal the judgment and disposition of the children's court, Child responds that the disposition is authorized by the Code. Thus, we address two issues: (1) CYFD's right to appeal a delinquency disposition, and (2) the dispositional authority of the children's court to commit a delinquent child to the custody of CYFD pursuant to a plea agreement.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

{7} The question whether the Delinquency Act authorizes Child's commitment to age eighteen is one of statutory construction which this Court reviews de novo. See State v. Jose S., 2005-NMCA-094, ¶ 6, 138 N.M. 44, 116 P.3d 115, cert. denied, 2005-NMCERT-007, 138 N.M. 145, 117 P.3d 951. "The language of unambiguous provisions must be given effect without further interpretation. Only ambiguous provisions require us to delve into the legislative purpose behind the statute." Id. (citation omitted). "Although portions of the [Act] at issue in [this appeal] were subsequently amended, we review the version of the [statute] in effect during the course of [Child's] proceedings." State v. Steven B., 2004-NMCA-086, ¶ 11 136 N.M. 111, 94 P.3d 854 (citations omitted) (cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-007, 136 N.M. 452, 99 P.3d 1164).

STANDING

{8} As a preliminary matter, we address Child's claim that CYFD does not have standing to bring this appeal. Child asserts, based on Rule 10-108(A) NMRA, that the parties in a delinquency proceeding are the child and the State. Because CYFD, and not the children's court attorney who prosecuted the case below, appealed to this Court, Child argues that CYFD is not a party to the delinquency proceedings and otherwise lacks standing to appeal. We disagree.

{9} The Code provides that "[a]ny party may appeal from a judgment of the court to the court of appeals in the manner provided by law." Section 32A-1-17(A). Rule 10-108(A) provides that the parties in proceedings on petitions alleging delinquency "are the child alleged to be delinquent and the state." In Child's view, the entity referred to in the children's court rule as "the state" refers to the state as the prosecutor during the delinquency proceeding. Because CYFD did not file a motion to clarify the disposition until after the judgment was entered, Child assumes that CYFD was not a party and cannot appeal. Child further argues that CYFD has not otherwise demonstrated that it was aggrieved or prejudiced by the children's court decision.

{10} This case does not require us to determine whether the State, which was a party at the time judgment was entered, is a party different from CYFD. See State v. Doe, 90 N.M. 572, 574, 566 P.2d 121, 123 (Ct.App. 1977) (noting in a slightly different context that there was no need to determine whether the State was a party different from the Department of Corrections). Even if we assume that the State and CYFD are separate parties, the children's court rules permit intervention, with leave of the court, by the custodian of the child. See Rule 10-108(E)(2)(a). CYFD became the custodian of Child after the initial judgment was entered. As custodian, CYFD filed a motion to clarify the amended disposition it was responsible for implementing. The children's court agreed to hear the motion. Even though Child argues that CYFD did not make a formal application to intervene as custodian, in Doe we recognized that an agency acting as custodian became an intervening party by virtue of the district court's grant of its motion after the entry of judgment. 90 N.M. at 574, 566 P.2d at 123. Here intervention implicitly occurred when the children's court heard CYFD's motion to clarify the disposition without challenging CYFD's right to come before the court. Cf. id. (holding that, after judgments placed delinquent children in the custody of the department of corrections, intervention occurred when the children's court granted the department's motion for an extension of time for filing notices of appeal).

{11} Child points out that after the hearing on CYFD's motion to clarify the judgment, the children's court stated that CYFD's motion was inappropriate. This comment, Child argues, suggests that the children's court did not allow intervention by virtue of either the motion or the hearing. Child further argues that when the children's court denied the motion, it could have determined that CYFD lacked standing. We are not persuaded.

{12} Nothing in the record indicates that the children's court thought CYFD's motion to clarify the judgment was inappropriate because CYFD was not a proper party. Rather, at the hearing the children's court dismissed the motion as inappropriate after emphasizing that the disposition was consistent with the plea agreement and that it was the understanding of the parties that a commitment to age twenty-one would serve no purpose. Even though the children's court denied CYFD's motion, at no...