State v. Isaiah M.

• Decision Date: 23 September 2022
• Docket Number: W2021-01133-COA-R3-JV
• Parties: STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ISAIAH M.
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

1

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ISAIAH M.

No. W2021-01133-COA-R3-JV

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

September 23, 2022

Session August 18, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. 21-356 Donald H. Allen, Judge

This appeal arises out of delinquency proceedings that originated in the Madison County Juvenile Court. The State filed an initial delinquency petition, but the petition was unverified. The defect in the petition remained undiscovered by the State until the first witness was sworn at the adjudicatory hearing. The juvenile court dismissed the petition and found that jeopardy attached. The State filed a second verified delinquency petition. However, the juvenile court dismissed the petition finding that it violated principles of double jeopardy. The State appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court dismissed the petition finding that jeopardy attached on the initial petition. The State appeals. We reverse and remand.

Tenn R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Reversed and Remanded

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter Andrée Sophia Blumstein, Solicitor General, and Andrew C. Coulam, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for the appellant, State of Tennessee.

Tim Edward Fowler, Jr., Humboldt, Tennessee, for the appellee, Isaiah M.

Carma Dennis McGee, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Arnold B. Goldin, and Kenny W. Armstrong, JJ., joined.

OPINION

CARMA DENNIS McGEE, JUDGE

I. Facts & Procedural History

On or about February 10, 2020, fifteen-year-old Isaiah M. ("Defendant") was residing in his foster home, just a week before he was to be adopted by his foster parents, when he allegedly committed child rape and aggravated sexual battery. As a result, the State filed a delinquency petition against Defendant in juvenile court. However, the petition was unverified, and the exact filing date of the petition is unknown. Beginning in April 2020, Defendant participated in treatment for sexually reactive and sexually abusive males at Cedar Grove Treatment Program. He attended treatment with the program for approximately nine months.

In March 2021, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to have an adjudicatory hearing pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Juvenile Practice and Procedure Rule 210, which requires a hearing within 30 days of a juvenile being removed from his or her home or 90 days for any case. In May 2021, the juvenile court held an adjudicatory hearing.^[1] During the hearing, counsel for Defendant brought the unverified petition to the court's attention after the first witness was sworn. Therefore, the court entered an order dismissing the charges and dismissing the case due to the unverified petition. The court stated in its order that jeopardy attached because the first witness had taken the stand.

Afterward, instead of appealing the court's order of dismissal, the State filed a second verified petition. Defendant then filed another motion to dismiss. Defendant contended that the State did not have a right of de novo appeal because of double jeopardy, but, even if it did, the proper remedy for the State after issuance of the juvenile court's order was to file a timely appeal to the circuit court within ten days, which it failed to do. The State then filed a memorandum in support of its refiling of the petition. The State argued that a defective charging instrument (the initial petition) did not place Defendant in jeopardy. Furthermore, the State argued that it had a right to refile a second petition and that the second petition did not place Defendant in double jeopardy. After a hearing, the juvenile court entered an order with the following findings: (1) the State could have filed an appeal of the dismissal of the initial petition and did not; (2) the filing of the second petition violated principles of double jeopardy based on the court's previous ruling; (3) the State's argument against double jeopardy was not compelling because the cases cited were not juvenile delinquency cases and the court did not find adequate similarities between an indictment and a delinquency petition; and (4) Defendant's attendance of an extensive rehabilitation program and the recommendations of his forensic evaluation negated any need for rehabilitation, which was a requirement to file a delinquency petition. Therefore, the court dismissed the State's second petition.

The State timely filed an appeal to the circuit court. Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. After a hearing in August 2021, the circuit court entered its order. The court summarized the State's argument in its order:

The State filed a timely appeal from the order dismissing the second petition alleging that an unsworn petition does not invoke the jurisdiction of the Court and a Court that has no jurisdiction cannot place a defendant in jeopardy. Reasoning that because the Juvenile Court lacked jurisdiction because of the original unsworn petition[,] then no jeopardy attached when the first witness was sworn in because the Court never had jurisdiction and the proceedings were a nullity.

Despite this argument, the court dismissed the appeal. The court's order stated in pertinent part as follows:

The State's appeal of the dismissal of the original juvenile petition [in case No.] 59-53-245 which was not sworn is dismissed because there was no timely appeal (filed by the State, as to that Juvenile Court order.)

The [S]tate's appeal is dismissed as to the appeal in case No. 59-53-929 because (this Court finds that) once a witness is sworn jeopardy attaches even on a petition that is not sworn. Because jeopardy attached on the original unsworn petition then the State's appeal is dismissed.^[2]

The order noted that the transcript of the proceedings was attached and incorporated by reference, but it was not attached to the order in the technical record.^[3] Thereafter, the State timely filed an appeal with this Court.

II. Issues Presented

The State presents the following issues for review on appeal, which we have slightly restated:

1. Whether the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy precluded the State from filing a second delinquency petition against Defendant after the initial petition was found to be a nullity because it was unverified; and

2. Whether the juvenile court's premature double-jeopardy ruling-made before a second delinquency petition had even been filed and therefore before the issue was ripe for adjudication-compelled the State to fruitlessly appeal the initial dismissal instead of simply curing the initial petition's flaw by filing a second verified petition.

For the following reasons, we reverse the decision of the circuit court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

III. Standard of Review

The issues for review on appeal involve double jeopardy principles. These are "question[s] of law with constitutional implications and, as such, our review is de novo with no presumption of correctness afforded to the determinations of the trial court." State v. Houston, 328 S.W.3d 867, 875 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010); see State v. Davis, 266 S.W.3d 896, 901 (Tenn. 2008) (citing State v. Burns, 205 S.W.3d 412, 414 (Tenn. 2006)).

IV. Discussion

The State first contends that the prohibition against double jeopardy does not prevent it from filing a second delinquency petition when the initial petition was a legal nullity. We begin with a discussion on the subject of double jeopardy.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution provides that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." U.S. Const. amend. V. Similarly, the Tennessee Constitution states that "no person shall, for the same offence, be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Tenn. Const. art. 1, § 10. The purpose of the protection against double jeopardy has been expressed by the United States Supreme Court and recognized by the Tennessee Supreme Court:

The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.

State v. Pennington, 952 S.W.2d 420, 422 (Tenn. 1997) (quoting Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187-188, 78 S.Ct. 221, 223, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957)). Just like adults, children are entitled to the protections afforded by the Constitution. Doe v. Norris, 751 S.W.2d 834, 839 (Tenn. 1988); see Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 104 S.Ct. 2403, 81 L.Ed.2d 207 (1984); Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 95 S.Ct. 1779, 44 L.Ed.2d 346 (1975); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967); State ex rel. Anglin v. Mitchell, 596 S.W.2d 779, 789 (Tenn. 1980); State v. Jackson, 503 S.W.2d 185 (Tenn. 1973). This includes the protection against double jeopardy, which extends to delinquency proceedings in juvenile court such as the one here. Jackson, 503 S.W.2d at 188; but cf. Burns, 205 S.W.3d at 418 (concluding that juveniles adjudged delinquent on the basis of an offense which would be a felony if committed by an adult are not entitled to a jury trial upon their de novo appeal to the circuit court).

A violation of double jeopardy arises "only when an individual is twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense." Pennington, 952 S.W.2d at 422. Stated differently, "[a] defendant must be put in jeopardy at...