IN THE INTEREST OF X.B., A CHILD v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: FEBRUARY 7, 2003; 10:00 a.m.
MODIFIED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED: April 25, 2003; 2:00 p.m.
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2001-CA-001617-DG
IN THE INTEREST OF X.B.,
A CHILD
APPELLANT
ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE THOMAS R. LEWIS, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 99-XX-00030
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
APPELLEE
OPINION
VACATING AND REMANDING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
BUCKINGHAM, McANULTY, and SCHRODER, Judges.
BUCKINGHAM, JUDGE: This case involves an order of the Juvenile
Division of the Warren District Court committing a child, X.B.1,
to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for placement.
We
granted discretionary review after the Warren Circuit Court
entered an order affirming the decision of the Warren District
Court.
1
We vacate and remand.
Because the child is a juvenile, we will refer to him by his initials
rather than his name.
X.B. was charged in the Juvenile Division of the
Warren District Court with the criminal offenses of seconddegree burglary, first-degree criminal mischief, third-degree
criminal mischief, and theft by unlawful taking of property
valued less than $300.
On September 27, 1999, X.B., who was
thirteen years old at the time, signed a district court form
advising him of his various rights.
The form contained a
provision that A[i]f you stipulate (admit) to the charges, the
Court will consider recommendations made by the County Attorney
working with the Cabinet for Human Resources and your attorney.@
When X.B. signed this statement of rights, he was present in
court with only his grandfather, who was X.B.=s legal custodian.
He was not represented by an attorney at that time.
On November 2, 1999, X.B. returned to the juvenile
court and stipulated to the charge of second-degree burglary.
The remaining charges were merged into that charge.
Following
X.B.=s stipulation, the court set the case for a dispositional
hearing to be held on November 18, 1999.
The court noted that a
representative from DJJ would make recommendations at that time.
On November 18, 1999, the DJJ case worker recommended
to the court that X.B. be probated to DJJ and that X.B. be
allowed to continue living with his grandfather.
In addition,
the case worker recommended that X.B. be evaluated for day
treatment.
However, the court decided that probation was not
-2-
appropriate and that X.B. was Aright for placement@ with DJJ.
Thus, the court rejected the recommendation of DJJ and ordered
placement rather than probation.
X.B. was allowed to continue
living with his grandfather until placement.
X.B. appealed the district court=s decision to the
Warren Circuit Court.
X.B.=s case.
review.
That court affirmed the disposition of
X.B. then petitioned this court for discretionary
The petition was granted, and we review the matter
herein.
X.B. argues that the district court abused its
discretion when it placed him with the DJJ rather than giving
him probation.
Specifically, X.B. argues that the court was
required to impose the least restrictive alternative when there
was no showing that any less restrictive alternatives had been
attempted or were not feasible.
In support of the argument,
X.B. cites KRS2 600.010(2)(c).
The statute states that A[t]he court shall show that
other less restrictive alternatives have been attempted or are
not feasible in order to insure that children are not removed
from families except when absolutely necessary.@
600.010(2)(c).
KRS
This statute is set forth in a provision
entitled ATitle and Intent of KRS Chapters 600-645@ and is stated
2
Kentucky Revised Statutes.
-3-
to be one of the Aexpress legislative purposes@ of the Kentucky
Unified Juvenile Code.
KRS 600.010(2).
X.B. argues that the
court abused its discretion in committing him to the DJJ Aabsent
evidence and specific findings that probation would not be a
proper disposition.@
We have read a transcript of the dispositional hearing
and note that the district court gave no reason for committing
X.B. to DJJ other than to state that he was Aright for
placement.@
Specifically, the court did not state that other
less restrictive alternatives, such as probation, had been
attempted or were not feasible.
Furthermore, there was no
indication in the record that X.B. had ever been adjudicated
delinquent of any offense or that he had been subjected to any
form of treatment or probation by the juvenile justice system
prior to the court committing him to DJJ in this case.
X.B. was only thirteen years old when he appeared
before the court, and he apparently had never been subjected to
any sort of punishment or treatment by the juvenile justice
system.
We conclude that, before X.B. could be taken from his
family and placed with DJJ, the court should have at least
stated its reasons for doing so.
3
The statute requires as much.3
Had the record clearly indicated that X.B. had been before the court on
previous occasions and that the court had attempted lesser restrictive
alternatives, then the result herein may have been different. In this case,
however, there is no indication that lesser restrictive alternatives had been
attempted or were not feasible.
-4-
Thus, we vacate the disposition order and remand the case to the
Warren District Court for the entry of additional findings to
support the disposition or for a new disposition in accordance
with lesser restrictive alternatives.
X.B.=s second argument is that his Auncounseled
admission to the underlying charge was not knowingly and
voluntarily made when his admission was made in reliance on the
juvenile court=s indication that it would consider the
recommendations of the Cabinet for Human Resources and when the
court ultimately would not honor the worker=s recommendations.@
In other words, X.B. argues that he stipulated to the offense
with the understanding and reliance that the court would follow
the recommendations of the DJJ case worker.
The facts of the
case do not support this argument.
It is true that X.B. did not have an attorney when he
signed the statement of rights form at his initial juvenile
court appearance.
As we have noted, that form contained a
provision which stated that if X.B. stipulated to the charges,
the court would consider recommendations made by the county
attorney and the DJJ case worker.
However, X.B. was represented
by an attorney when he stipulated to the offense on November 2,
1999.
The fact that he was not represented by an attorney when
he signed the statement of rights form does not make his
stipulation Auncounseled.@
-5-
X.B. further argues in this regard that he stipulated
to the offense in reliance that the court would consider the
case worker=s recommendations and that he would be entitled to
withdraw the stipulation if the court determined that it would
not follow those recommendations.
In support of that argument,
X.B. cites RCr4 8.10 and Kennedy v. Commonwealth, Ky., 962 S.W.2d
880 (1997), and he states that A[w]hen a plea agreement is not
honored, the defendant has an unequivocal right to withdraw his
plea.@
There are two problems with X.B.=s argument in this
regard.
First, the signed statement of rights form stated only
that the court would Aconsider@ recommendations made by the
county attorney and DJJ.
The form did not state or otherwise
represent that those recommendations would be binding on the
court.
Second, X.B. could not have relied on the case worker=s
recommendation of probation when he stipulated to the offense
because said recommendation had not been made at that time.
It
was only later, at the November 18, 1999 dispositional hearing,
that the DJJ case worker recommended probation.
In short, X.B.=s
argument that he relied on the recommendation and that Athe state
broke their implied promise to X.B.@ is without merit.5
4
Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure.
5
If X.B. is implying that the Commonwealth breached a plea agreement
with him, then that argument is also without merit because the county
-6-
The order of the Warren District Court is vacated and
remanded.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR
APPELLANT:
BRIEF AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR
APPELLEE:
Suzanne Hopf
Frankfort, Kentucky
Timothy K. Chism, Jr.
Assistant Warren County
Attorney
Bowling Green, Kentucky
attorney never opposed the recommendation of the DJJ case worker.
-7-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.