17 results for 'cat:"Criminal Procedure" AND cat:"Juvenile Law"'.
J. Lobrano finds that the juvenile court should not have dismissed the state’s delinquency petition against a juvenile for not timely commencing the adjudication hearing. In this case, the failure of the juvenile to appear at the adjudication hearing was beyond the state’s control because the delay was caused by the failure of the detention facility to comply with the writs to present the juvenile in court for trial. Further, the state communicated with the detention facility before trial to confirm receipt of service of the writ of habeas corpus issued by the state. Reversed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Lobrano, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: 2024-CA-0031, Categories: criminal Procedure, juvenile Law, Speedy Trial
J. Gallagher finds the juvenile court properly transferred defendant's case to adult court. Although he was only 14 at the time he committed the murders, he had already failed to respond to counseling and interventions, had a violent criminal history and was the principal offender of the crime at issue, which involved shooting two victims in the back without any provocation. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Gallagher, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-729, Categories: criminal Procedure, juvenile Law, Murder
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Chutich affirms the Court of Appeals and the district court in the juvenile delinquency defendant's appeal arguing that the state cannot file more than one notice of intention to prosecute in juvenile delinquency proceedings. The state can file multiple such notices, and thereby extend a suspension of gross misdemeanor proceedings until a child found to be incompetent is restored to competency or ages out of juvenile jurisdiction, or until the state fails to file a timely notice. The Juvenile Rules Advisory Committee is also directed to propose amendments to the relevant rule that will "promote clear, consistent practice and procedures in these juvenile cases." Affirmed.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Chutich, Filed On: February 28, 2024, Case #: A22-0654, Categories: criminal Procedure, juvenile Law, Sex Offender
J. Lipinsky finds the trial court erroneously granted the state's motion for a continuance in a juvenile's arson and burglary case. The juvenile court must apply the same standards as those used in adult court when considering a motion for a continuance past the speedy trial deadline. The prosecutor requested the continuance because of the alleged unavailability of witnesses during Thanksgiving week, but because she failed to include specific witnesses who would be absent or why their testimony was crucial to the state's case, the continuance should not have been granted and the juvenile's order of delinquency will be vacated. Reversed.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Lipinsky, Filed On: January 11, 2024, Case #: 2024COA4, Categories: criminal Procedure, juvenile Law, Speedy Trial
J. Mansfield finds that the juvenile court could not "reclaim jurisdiction" after waiving a case for the district court to prosecute defendant, a 17-year-old, for sexual exploitation of a minor and possession of child pornography. The juvenile court had no legal authority to attempt to regain control of the case after waiving such for the purpose of having defendant tried as an adult.
Court: Iowa Supreme Court, Judge: Mansfield, Filed On: December 15, 2023, Case #: 22-0326, Categories: criminal Procedure, juvenile Law, Sex Offender
Per curiam, the court of appeals finds that the appellate division properly held that defendant was ineligible for adjudication as a youthful offender after pleading guilty to weapon possession for brandishing a loaded gun during an argument over a parking space. Although he was 17 years old at the time, mitigating circumstances did not offset the threatening manner in which defendant used the gun. Meanwhile, defendant failed to preserve the challenge to being convicted under the New York law criminalizing unlicensed possession of a firearm outside of a home or business because he did not raise the issue in the trial or appellate courts. Affirmed.
Court: New York Court Of Appeals, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: November 21, 2023, Case #: 64, Categories: criminal Procedure, Firearms, juvenile Law
J. Raphael finds that statute authorized the juvenile court to dismiss parts of a petition against a juvenile without dismissing the entire petition. The juvenile court dismissed one gun possession count that did not allow for his commitment to a secure youth treatment facility but retained the robbery and assault counts that did. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Raphael, Filed On: August 3, 2023, Case #: E080284, Categories: criminal Procedure, juvenile Law, Robbery
J. Albright disagrees with the lower court's decision to deny an incarcerated man his motion to reduce his sentence based on the Juvenile Restoration Act as the court erroneously concluded that it lacked authority to do otherwise. The man was convicted of first degree murder at the age of 17 in 1988 and sentenced to life plus two consecutive 20-year sentences for other charges. The lower court argues that because the man's sentence is parole eligible, a reduction should be decided by the parole board. However, according to a state statute, parole eligibility does not prevent the court from granting a reduced sentence. Vacated.
Court: The Appellate Court of Maryland, Judge: Albright, Filed On: July 27, 2023, Case #: 00009893, Categories: criminal Procedure, juvenile Law, Murder
J. Egan finds that the lower court improperly adjudicated defendant as a juvenile delinquent based on his admission that he possessed stolen property because the allocution did not alert defendant or his mother to possible dispositional orders, a mandatory provision that cannot be waived. Reversed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Egan, Filed On: July 6, 2023, Case #: 536022, Categories: criminal Procedure, juvenile Law
J. Zic affirms the lower court’s ruling that a man who pled guilty to multiple crimes when he was a minor cannot be granted a reduction in his sentences under the Juvenile Restoration Act of 2021. The act states that if someone was convicted of a crime or crimes within one case as a juvenile, and they have already served 20 years, they may be considered for a reduction. However, this man was convicted of crimes across four separate cases and so is not eligible. Affirmed.
Court: The Appellate Court of Maryland, Judge: Zic, Filed On: May 30, 2023, Case #: 22-K-99-000114, Categories: criminal Procedure, juvenile Law, Sentencing