State of Louisiana in The Interest of J. N.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT h1 2012 KJ 0336 TATS OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF J N Judgment Rendered SEP 2 1 2012 APPEALED FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAI DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 92 DIVISION A 948 THE HONORABLE KATHLEEN STEWART RICHEY JUDGE Hillar C Moore III Attorney for Appellant District Attorney State of Louisiana and Jaclyn C Chapman Assistant District Attorney Baton Rouge Louisiana Katherine M Franks Attorney for Defendant Appellee Abita Springs Louisiana N J BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND McDONALD JJ McDONALD J In January 2008 J a child who was then fifteen years old was charged N by petition number 92948 with aggravated burglary count 1 in violation of La S R 60 14 armed robbery count 2 in violation of La R 14 false S 64 imprisonment with a dangerous weapon count 3 in violation of La R 14 S 46 1 and simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling count 4 in violation of La R S 14 62 2 He denied the allegations but thereafter withdrew his plea and admitted the allegations as charged to counts 2 3 and 4 Count 1 was dismissed At the same hearing he also admitted to or pled no contest to al I of the charges in petition number 92735 After dispositional delays were waived the court rendered the following dispositions on count 2 commitment until his twentyfirst birthday concurrent with counts 3 and 4 and with petition number 92735 counts I through 5 on count 3 three years commitment concurrent with counts 2 and 4 and with petition number 92735 counts l through 5 on count 4 three years commitment concurrent with counts 2 and 3 and with petition number 92735 counts 1 through 5 In November 2011 J fled a motion to reconsider andor terminate N disposition In December 2011 after a hearing on the motion the court terminated s N J disposition The State now appeals raising one issue for review We reverse the juvenile court ruling terminating the disposition and reinstate the s disposition In November 2007 J was charged by petition number 92735 with unauthorized use of a N motor vehicle count 1 in violation of La R 14 resisting a law enforcement officer S 68 4 count 2 in violation of La R 14 aggravated flight from an officer counts 3 and 4 in S 108 violation of La R 14 and possession of a controlled dangerous substance cocaine S 108 1 count 5 in violation of La R 40 S 967 CAlso in March 2008 he and another individual were indicted by a grand jury with one count of anned robbery J was never prosecuted under N that indictment At the same hearing the juvenile court imposed dispositions for the charges in petition number 92735 None of those dispositions exceeded three years 2 The juvenile admitted to the charges and the facts were not developed The juvenile court questioned the State and the juvenile as to the circumstances of the offense and found a factual basis for the admission to the allegation in the petition ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR In the only assignment of error the State contends that the juvenile court erred in terminating J disposition prior to the imposed term of commitment s N when he was adjudicated a delinquent pursuant to La Ch Code art 897 The B 1 State argues that Article 897 mandates that a commitment for armed robbery B 1 be served in its entirety and that La Ch Code art 909 explicitly prohibits the termination of a commitment imposed under Article 897 B 1 On the delinquency adjudication based on armed robbery in violation of La S 4 R 1 the juvenile court ordered the juvenile committed to the custody of the 64 Department of Public Safety and Corrections until his 21st birthday with credit for time served which commitment was made executory this date At the time of the adjudication and disposition on August 26 2008 the juvenile was sixteen years old On November 9 2011 when he was nineteen years old the juvenile filed a motion and order to reconsider andor terminate disposition As support the motion stated that J was on a minimumcustody level had received his GED N was enrolled in the computertech vocational trade and was attending Delta Community College at the University of Louisiana in Monroe Louisiana It also declared that J had reached maximum benefits from his placement with the N Office of Juvenile Justice The hearing on the motion to reconsider andor terminate disposition was held on December 28 201 1 While the State acknowledged that J had made a N lot of progress during his time in State custody and was clearly one of the better residents it stated that unfortunately the District Attorney hands were tied by s 3 the law Presumably referring to Article 897 the State argued that it had to B 1 object to J motion because the law did not allow modifications However the s N State perceived a gap in the law because it did not seem to address a transition for juveniles who made progress to reintegrate them into society Reading the law to not prohibit furloughs the State said that it would not object to allowing J to N have generous furloughs The Department of Public Safety and Corrections did not join the motion or make any recommendation but did recognize that J had done extremely well N and said they were prepared to make arrangements for him to have as many furloughs as possible The Office of Juvenile Justice gave its opinion that J had N been acting exemplary J counsel emphasized his progress in rehabilitation s N noting that he was already doing things that people in society do such as attending college He asked the court to exercise its discretion and grant J extended N furloughs N J also informed the court that his brother who lived in Texas was willing for J to live with him and attend college there N The juvenile court then stated Well you know the first Article in Title 8 says that the whole purpose of this is rehabilitation is to redirect children children young people and have them um make better choices and avoid criminal behavior Later on in that Title of the Code it says that if you commit the offense of armed robbery you have to stay in secure custody for the entire disposition and it removes from the Juvenile Court Judge the ability to tailor a disposition to meet the circumstances of the case and the circumstances of the kid Um you more than most have earned the right for early release but I can t release you I can parole you however I do retain the ability to t terminate a case m s It done you release sic Good luck I re granting the Motion over the State objection s N J is now twenty years old He will be twenty one on July 27 2013 Article 897 1 which addresses disposition after adjudication of certain felony grade delinquent acts provides in pertinent part B After adjudication of a felonygrade delinquent act based upon a violation of R 14 armed robbery the court shall commit the S 64 11 child who is fourteen years of age or older at the time of the commission of the offense to the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections to be confined in secure placement for the length of the term imposed by the court at the disposition hearing without benefit of parole probation suspension of imposition or execution ofsentence or modification of sentence Emphasis added The State position is that the juvenile court erred in tenninating the s disposition because Article 897 mandates that once a commitment for armed B 1 robbery is imposed as is the case here the juvenile must serve that commitment in its entirety The issue before us now is whether the juvenile court had the authority to tenninate the disposition early 3 While Article 897 expressly prohibits modification termination is not B 1 even mentioned The State suggests that is because termination is no different from modification and is actually the ultimate modification The State also argues that termination is undoubtedly included within the prohibition against modification because to find otherwise would render that portion of the statute absurd and meaningless N J reads the statute narrowly as reserving to the juvenile court the authority to terminate a disposition even if it cannot modify it Both parties cite Article 909 to support their respective positions Article 909 which addresses modification authority generally provides Except as provided for in Article 897 after the entry of any order of 1 disposition the court retains the power to modify it including changing the child legal custody suspending all or part of any order s of commitment discharging conditions of probation or adding any further condition authorized by Article 897 or 899 It may also B B terminate an order ofdisposition at any time while it is still inforce Emphasis added At issue is whether the restrictive language at the beginning of the first sentence eas provided for in Article 897 applies to the first sentence xcept 1 only or whether it extends to the second sentence of Article 909 thus explicitly prohibiting termination 3 Neither party challenges whether that disposition was proper at the time it was imposed R Legislative intent is the fundamental question in all cases of statutory interpretation and rules of statutory construction are designed to ascertain and enforce the intent of the statute State v Campbell 2003 3035 La 7 877 04 6 2d So 112 117 State v Peters 2005 2069 La App 1st Cir 5 935 So 06 2d 201 203 04 It is presumed that the legislature enacts each statute with deliberation and with full knowledge of all existing laws on the same subject Thus legislative language is interpreted by the courts on the assumption that the legislature was aware of existing statutes rules of construction and judicial decisions interpreting those statutes It is further presumed that the legislative branch intends to achieve a consistent body of law Id To ascertain the meaning of Articles 897 and 909 we look first to La Ch 1 Code art 801 which states the purpose of the Children Code chapter on s delinquency Article 801 provides The purpose of this Title is to accord due process to each child who is accused of having committed a delinquent act and except as provided for in Article 897 to insure that he shall receive preferably in his 1 own home the care guidance and control that will be conducive to his welfare and the best interests of the state and that in those instances when he is removed from the control of his parents the court shall secure for him care as nearly as possible equivalent to that which the parents should have given him Emphasis added We also consider La R 1 5 which addresses a juvenile release from S 906 s commitment and states A 1 Except Department committing who in the as provided for in Children Code Article 897 1 the s of Public Safety and Corrections may recommend to the court the release of any juvenile committed to its care opinion of the department is ready to be returned to his own home or to a substitute home Such juvenile may be discharged by the court without supervision or may be placed under supervision until further orders of the court 2 Except as provided for in Subsection B ofthis Section it is hereby declared to be the public policy of this state that commitment of a juvenile to the care ofthe department is not punitive nor in anywise to be construed as a penal sentence but as a step in the total treatment process toward rehabilitation of the juvenile and that therefore the 6 recommendations of the given careful consideration by the court in determining what is to the best interest of the juvenile If after release from the care of the department but while the juvenile is still under the supervision of the court the court deems it advisable to return the juvenile to the care of the department department should be a recommitment order shall be furnished the department B In cases governed by Children Code Article 897 it is hereby s 1 declared to be the public policy of this state that commitment of a juvenile to the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections for confinement in secure placement without benefit of parole probation suspension of imposition or execution of sentence or modification ofsentence is necessary and proper because these very serious offenses the protection ofsociety is the primary objective Emphasis added In addition we take into account that in 2004 Article 897 was B 1 amended to remove a restriction on furloughs Under certain circumstances current law authorizes temporary furloughs for deserving students of any juvenile institution A furlough is meant to serve as a rehabilitative tool to assist the child in maintaining family commitment and community relations during the period of his However a furlough is not to be considered a release from commitment La R 15 S 908 A N J argues that when the legislature amended Article 897 1 to allow furloughs it expanded the juvenile court authority and recognized that for some s juveniles serving a full disposition was more detrimental than beneficial Notably in the instant case all parties involved agreed that J should be allowed to have N furloughs The juvenile court instead terminated the disposition We must evaluate all applicable statutes together to determine the s legislature intent regarding the treatment of juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent because of certain serious felony offenses and the juvenile court s authority to terminate a disposition before the term of commitment is complete Louisiana Revised Statutes 15 is very clear that in enacting Article 897 1 B 906 the legislature primary objective was to protect society from juveniles who s commit very serious offenses including armed robbery VA The legislature s chosen method of attaining this goal was to keep those particular juveniles away from society for the duration of their commitment and to restrict the juvenile s court authority to modify a disposition In addition in Article 801 Article 897 1 is exempted from the Children Code general statutory purpose of ensuring that ss the child receives the care guidance and control conducive to his welfare and the best interests of the State This is further direction that the purpose of Article 1 897 is not rehabilitation and that termination is not an action contemplated within that article We also note that when Article 897 was added to the 1 s Children Code in 1993 Article 909 was amended to include the phrase e xcept as provided for in Article 897 Since the legislature enacted Article 897 with 1 1 the primary objective of protecting society from certain violent juveniles we read that additional language to apply to all of Article 909 including the authority to tenninate In addition while the removal of furloughs from Article 897 in 2004 1 gave the juvenile courts one tool to help integrate a deserving juvenile back into society we do not interpret that amendment as diminishing the specific purpose of Article 897 1 articulated in La R 15 A furlough which is a temporary S 906 B measure during which the juvenile court retains jurisdiction is not equivalent with termination or even modification of the disposition Accordingly we construe Article 897 and Article 909 as restricting the 1 juvenile court authority to terminate a disposition s To hold otherwise would violate the meaning of Article 897 and lead to an absurd result It is illogical to 1 allow a greater action tennination but prohibit a lesser one modification when the stated purpose of Article 897 is to protect society from certain violent 1 juvenile offenders For the foregoing reasons we reverse the decision of the juvenile court terminating the disposition and reinstate the disposition REVERSED DISPOSITION REINS ATED T
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.
