|
|
|
| Juvenile/Youthful Offender |
|
United States v. McQuade Q.,
No. 04-2145 (10th Cir., April 5, 2005) (Published): Case from the murky world of federal juvenile law under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act. Government's motion to proceed against McQuade as an adult is granted by the District Court and affirmed by the circuit. Good discussion of federal juvenile law; but I have not met a lawyer in my life who, to my knowledge, has actually handled a federal juvenile case.
|
|
|
J.F.M. v. State,
No. J-2005-549 (Okl.Cr., September 2, 2005) (Unpublished): Youthful Offender winner!!! JFM was only fourteen-years-old when he was charged with Murder I in Comanche County. The trial court ordered him tried as an adult and denied his motion for certification as either a juvenile or Youthful Offender. The legal error in this case, couched under a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, is that trial counsel did not present any evidence at the certification hearing, choosing instead to merely cross-examine the State's witnesses. The Court's opinion here is particularly strong on this issue, stating forcefully that the burden is on the accused to show that he is amenable to treatment as a YO or juvenile; and that at the new certification hearing he is to be provided effective counsel to "include expert witnesses to assist in meeting his burden of proof." Good opinion for OIDS attorneys to have when requesting experts in these cases; and also for private pay cases when the client cannot afford an expert (request funds from the trial court and show the judge this opinion).
|
|
|
United States v. David A. (a juvenile),
No. 04-2284 (10th Cir., February 3, 2006) (Published): This is a case involving the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act. I have been preparing this newsletter for almost a year now and this is only the second time I have noticed an opinion out of the Circuit dealing with federal juvenile law. In this case, David A. was accused of some heavy drug trafficking and the Government wanted to try him as an adult. The Circuit, in a very lengthy and detailed opinion, sets forth the legal landscape in this area and concludes ultimately that David A. will be tried as an adult.
|
|
|
D.N.H. v. State,
No. J-2005-1078 (Okl.Cr., January 26, 2006): Accelerated docket Order in a Youthful Offender case wherein the State, after jury selection had begun, moved to sentence the misguided youth as an adult. HELD: the trial court erred in granting the State's motion for adult sentencing because trial had commenced prior to the time the hearing was conducted. The Court stated that although jeopardy does not attach until the jury is empaneled, a trial begins for other purposes when jury selection begins (and citing cases). Because the State's motion was not heard "prior to trial" the District Court erred in dismissing the jury and conducting a hearing. NOTE: This is a case where I was present at the argument and decision, but only now acquired a copy of the written opinion.
|
|
|
R.J.M. v. State,
2006 OK CR 18 (Okl.Cr., May 15, 2006) (Published): Youthful Offender case. RJM was 17 years old when he was sentenced to OJA custody for seven years. The State failed to conduct a hearing prior to RJM's 18th birthday to extend or "bridge" OJA custody past the age of 18. RJM argued in this appeal that the State could not do so since he had already turned 18. RJM had an ally in OJA who recommended release since it had no jurisdiction to keep him without such a hearing being conducted. All to no avail, however, since COCA ruled that even if such a hearing is not held, the District Court still retains jurisdiction and can hold a hearing at a later time.
|
|
|
In the Matter of M.B.,
., 2006 OK 63 (Okl., September 12, 2006): Juvenile/Youthful Offender: This is a question of appellate jurisdiction, summed up by the Oklahoma Supreme Court as follows: "The dispositive issue presented is whether the Court of Criminal Appeals has appellate jurisdiction to review a juvenile court's order extending jurisdiction over a youthful offender to age twenty in the absence of a pre-birthday review hearing. We determine that it does and that the cause should be transferred to it." This is a unanimous opinion by Justice Kauger which graces us with the word "lacunae" which means an empty space or missing part.
|
|
|
State v. District Court of Oklahoma County,
2007 OK CR 3 (February 20, 2007): Juvenile/Youthful Offender: Odd case in which Oklahoma County juveniles ages 15, 16, and 17 were charged with First Degree Murder. The Oklahoma County Public Defender's Office moved for certification as either juveniles or youthful offenders. The quirky part of the case is that Governor Henry signed into law two bills on the same day (and only two minutes apart). The first one excluded defendants who were older than 14 from being certified as youthful offenders, but the second one retained the provision allowing those over age 14 to seek certification as a youthful offender. Judge Doak allowed the certification process to continue and the State sought a writ. DENIED. The later-enacted statute controls and thus the wayward yutes in Oklahoma County get a shot at youthful offender status because the Governor signed one law two minutes after he signed another. I suspect that this issue will be hashed out by the legislature in the near future.
|
|
|
United States v. C.M. (a juvenile),
No. 05-50585 (9th Cir., May 8, 2007): Juvenile/Youthful Offender: Title 18 U.S.C. sec. 5033 of the federal Juvenile Delinquency Act requires police to process a juvenile with a myriad of procedural safeguards such as immediately advising the juvenile of his/her rights, immediately advising the parent/custodian of the juvenile's rights, comply with any request by the juvenile to speak with his or her parents, and bring the juvenile before a magistrate "forthwith." The police did none of these things in this case, C.M. was locked in a holding cell for nearly ten hours, and the panel concluded that these violations were not harmless.
|
|
|
E.A.L.S. v. State,
No. J-2008-36 (Okl.Cr., February 7, 2008) (unpublished): Juvenile/Youthful Offender: In this juvenile case, the juvenile appealed an order of the district court certifying him to stand trial as an adult on a charge of First Degree Manslaughter. However, the district court vacated the juvenile's indigent status upon learning that he was admitted to bail in the amount of $10,000.00. The juvenile contends that he is indigent and simply had the assistance of his brother to bail him out. The district court was under the impression that the financial status of the parents was relevant since the accused was a juvenile and the parents were responsible for him. The Court disagreed and reversed with instructions for the trial court to appoint counsel. The test for indigence is personal to the Defendant.
|
|
|
|
