Matter of T.M.L. Youth Under 18.

January 17 2012
DA 11-0349
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2012 MT 9IN THE MATTER OF:
T.M.L.,
A Youth under the Age of 18.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District,
In and For the County of Broadwater, Cause No. DJ 09-16
Honorable James P. Reynolds, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Colin M. Stephens, Smith & Stephens, P.C., Missoula, Montana
For Appellee:
Steve Bullock, Montana Attorney General; Tammy A. Hinderman, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
John T. Flynn, Broadwater County Attorney, Townsend, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: December 14, 2011
Decided: January 17, 2012
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Michael E Wheat delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 T.M.L. appeals two orders of the First Judicial District, Broadwater County, one
denying T.M.L.’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and the other requiring T.M.L.
to register as a sex offender. We affirm in part, and remand for the limited purpose of
striking the sentencing condition requiring T.M.L. to register as a sexual offender.
BACKGROUND
¶2 In 2009, seventeen year old T.M.L. was charged in Youth Court with felony burglary,
misdemeanor criminal trespass to vehicles, and misdemeanor theft from a vehicle. Based
upon T.M.L.’s admissions of entering a house and car without permission, and stealing
women’s undergarments, T.M.L. pled guilty to felony burglary and misdemeanor criminal
trespass to vehicles on March 5, 2010.
¶3 The Youth Court entered a Dispositional Order on March 26, 2010, which
provided in pertinent part:
1. That the Youth, [T.M.L.], be placed on probation to the Juvenile Probation
Department of the First Judicial District until he reaches the age of 18 years
old and for the balance of said term, be under the control, abide by, and
carefully follow the instructions of said Juvenile Probation Department. Upon
reaching the age of 18, the Youth will appear before the Court for the purpose
of a Transfer Hearing pursuant to § 41-5-208, MCA, to transfer supervision
and responsibility to the District Court and the supervision to the Adult
Probation and Parole Department and to determine conditions of his probation
with the Adult Probation and Parole Department . . . .
T.M.L. turned eighteen on April 30, 2010.
¶4 On November 5, 2010, the State filed a Motion to Reinstate Youth Court Petition and
transfer from youth court to district court pursuant to § 41-5-208, MCA, and § 41-5-1501(4),
2
MCA. In response, T.M.L. filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the
State failed to file the motion prior to T.M.L. turning eighteen. The Youth Court denied
T.M.L.’s motion to dismiss on January 11, 2011. On March 7, 2011, the Youth Court
transferred T.M.L.’s matter to district court, and transferred T.M.L.’s supervision to adult
supervision under the Department of Corrections. As part of its March 7, 2011, Order, the
District Court required T.M.L. to register as a sexual offender. This timely appeal followed.
¶5 We restate the issues as follows:
¶6 Issue One: Did the Youth Court err when it retained jurisdiction over T.M.L.?
¶7 Issue Two: Did the Youth Court err when it required T.M.L. to register as a sexual
offender?
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶8 A youth court’s interpretation and application of the Youth Court Act is reviewed for
correctness. In re J.A., 2011 MT 132, ¶ 5, 361 Mont. 16, 255 P.3d 150 (citing In re Cascade
Co. Dist. Ct., 2009 MT 355, ¶ 10, 353 Mont. 194, 219 P.3d 1255). We review criminal
sentences for legality, to determine whether they are within the parameters set by statutes as
a matter of law. State v. Grana, 2009 MT 250, ¶ 11, 351 Mont. 499, 213 P.3d 783.
DISCUSSION
¶9 Issue One: Did the Youth Court err when it retained jurisdiction over T.M.L.?
¶10 T.M.L. argues the Youth Court lost jurisdiction when T.M.L. turned eighteen because
T.M.L.’s probation ended upon T.M.L. reaching the age of eighteen. The State argues the
3
Youth Court retained jurisdiction because the Dispositional Order extended jurisdiction past
T.M.L.’s probationary period in order to conduct a transfer hearing. The Youth Court agreed
with the State and retained jurisdiction because the Youth Court had not terminated its
jurisdiction pursuant to § 41-5-205(1), MCA, and because § 41-5-208(1), MCA, permits a
youth court to transfer a matter to district court “at any time after a youth reaches 18 years of
age but before the youth reaches 21 years of age.” We agree with the Youth Court.
¶11 Generally, a youth court’s jurisdiction ceases when the youth reaches the age of
twenty-one. In re J.A., ¶ 9. Section 41-5-205(1), MCA, provides:
The court may dismiss a petition or otherwise terminate jurisdiction on its own
motion or on the motion or petition of any interested party at any time. Unless
terminated by the court and except as provided in subsections (2) and (3), the
jurisdiction of the court continues until the individual becomes 21 years of
age.
Pursuant to § 41-5-208(1), MCA, a youth court retains jurisdiction to transfer a matter to the
district court “at any time after a youth reaches 18 years of age but before the youth reaches
21 years of age.”
¶12 If the exceptions found in § 41-5-205, MCA, are inapplicable, a youth court may
continue to exercise jurisdiction over an individual until he or she reaches 21 years of age.
In re K.D.K., 2006 MT 187, ¶ 20, 333 Mont. 100, 141 P.3d 1212. In K.D.K., the Youth
Court required K.D.K. to compensate the victim for any therapy costs associated with
K.D.K.’s crime against the victim. K.D.K., ¶ 4. The Order further provided that K.D.K.’s
probation would end on February 27, 2005, when K.D.K. turned eighteen. K.D.K., ¶ 4. The
Youth Court also stated it would “retain jurisdiction over the youth until the age of twenty-
4
one for financial purposes such as payment of fees/fines, attorney fees and/or restitution.”
K.D.K., ¶ 4.
¶13 In June 2003, K.D.K. executed a restitution agreement and agreed to pay $4,507.53 to
the victim. K.D.K., ¶ 6. On February 11, 2005, the State moved to modify the Youth
Court’s Order and requested additional restitution. K.D.K., ¶ 7. Two days before K.D.K.
turned eighteen, on February 25, 2005, the Youth Court held a hearing on the State’s motion
and required both parties to submit post-hearing briefs. K.D.K., ¶ 9. In K.D.K.’s brief,
K.D.K. asserted that the Youth Court could no longer exercise jurisdiction over K.D.K.
because K.D.K.’s probation ended on February 27, 2005. K.D.K., ¶ 11. More than three
months after K.D.K.’s probation ended, on June 9, 2005, the Youth Court granted the State’s
motion to modify its Order and impose additional restitution. K.D.K., ¶ 11.
¶14 K.D.K. appealed the imposition of additional restitution, arguing that the Youth Court
was without jurisdiction to order additional restitution after K.D.K.’s probation ended on
February 27, 2005. K.D.K., ¶ 17. On appeal, this Court held that the Youth Court lost
jurisdiction – except in relation to the financial obligations outlined in the original Order and
the restitution agreement – pursuant to § 41-5-205, MCA, on February 27, 2005, and thereby
lost its ability to impose additional financial obligations on K.D.K. K.D.K., ¶ 20. This Court
further noted that in a different case a youth court may “retain jurisdiction over a youth until
he or she reaches 21 years of age.” K.D.K. ¶ 20.
¶15 In this case, unlike K.D.K., the Youth Court did not terminate its jurisdiction under
§ 41-5-205, MCA, once T.M.L. turned eighteen and T.M.L.’s probation ended. Instead, the
5
Youth Court purposefully retained jurisdiction over T.M.L. when it required T.M.L., upon
turning eighteen, to appear before the court for the purpose of a transfer hearing. It is
irrelevant that the State did not request the transfer hearing until approximately six months
after T.M.L. reached the age of eighteen. Further, § 41-5-208, MCA, contemplates this exact
situation and provides youth court jurisdiction over a transfer proceeding once a youth
reaches eighteen, but before the youth turns twenty-one. Since the exceptions to § 41-5-
205(1), MCA, are inapplicable, the Youth Court had jurisdiction over T.M.L. and properly
denied T.M.L.’s motion to dismiss.
¶16 Issue Two: Did the Youth Court err when it required T.M.L. to register as a sexual
offender?
¶17 The appropriate remedy for an illegal sentencing condition hinges on the ability of the
lower court to correct the illegal sentencing condition on remand. State v. Olivares-Coster,
2011 MT 196, ¶ 16, 361 Mont. 380, 259 P.3d 760. To determine the appropriate remedy, we
utilize the following approach:
“[W]hen a portion of a sentence is illegal, the better result is to remand to the
district court to correct the illegal provision. Remand to give the district court
the opportunity to correct the illegal provision should be ordered unless, under
the particular circumstances of the case, the illegal portion of the sentence
cannot be corrected. If so, the case should be remanded to the district court
with instructions to strike the illegal conditions.”
Olivares-Coster, ¶ 16 (quoting State v. Heafner, 2010 MT 87, ¶ 11, 356 Mont. 128, 231
P.3d 1087). A sentencing condition imposed without statutory authority is illegal. See
Olivares-Coster, ¶¶ 17-18.
6
¶18 As a condition of T.M.L.’s probation, the Youth Court required T.M.L. to register as a
sexual offender pursuant to Title 46, Chapter 23, Part 5, MCA. According to this part, a
person who has been convicted of, or in youth court, found to have committed or been
adjudicated for a sexual offense is a sexual offender and shall register as such. Section 46-
23-504(1), MCA. This registration requirement applies to a discrete list of sexual offenses
found in § 46-23-502(9), MCA. Neither felony burglary, § 45-6-204, MCA, nor
misdemeanor criminal trespass to vehicles, § 45-6-202, MCA, is a sexual offense for which
registration is required. An individual may nevertheless be required to register as a sexual
offender for a non-delineated offense if it is part of a plea agreement. Section 46-23-512,
MCA.
¶19 It is clear that the Youth Court did not have the power to require T.M.L. to register as
a sexual offender. T.M.L. did not commit a delineated sexual offense, and signed no plea
agreement requiring registration. The State concedes the Youth Court exceeded its statutory
authority by requiring T.M.L. to register as a sexual offender. We agree with T.M.L. and the
State, the Youth Court had no statutory authority to require T.M.L. to register as a sexual
offender as a condition of T.M.L.’s sentence, therefore this condition is illegal. Accordingly,
we remand this matter for the limited purpose of striking the condition that T.M.L. register as
a sexual offender.
CONCLUSION
¶20 For the reasons stated above, we affirm in part, and remand for the limited purpose of
striking the sentencing condition requiring T.M.L. to register as a sexual offender.
7
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
We Concur:
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
8