Articles Posted in Juvenile Law

by
A.D.T., a juvenile, pled guilty to first-degree premeditated murder, completed the incarceration portion of his juvenile sentence and was placed on conditional release. A.D.T. subsequently violated his conditional release by twice testing positive for drugs. The district court revoked his juvenile sentence and imposed his adult sentence of life imprisonment. A.D.T. appealed, arguing that manifest injustice was caused to his constitutional rights. The State counted that the district court strictly complied with the provisions of Kan. Stat. Ann. 38-2364(b) governing the revocation of A.D.T.’s juvenile sentence and the invocation of his adult sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that it was not manifestly unjust for the district court to impose A.D.T.’s adult sentence for the positive urinalysis tests where (1) although A.D.T. did not receive the recommended substance abuse treatment while in the juvenile correctional facility, that circumstance cannot trump the plain language of section 38-2364(b); and (2) A.D.T. had fair notice and warning that, if he failed another drug test, he was facing a hard twenty-five life sentence as an adult. View "In re A.D.T." on Justia Law

by
This appeal concerned two unrelated cases. In the first case, Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary and misdemeanor theft. Defendant was eighteen years old when the crimes were committed. In the second case, Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated indecent liberties with a child. Defendant was seventeen years old when the crime was committed. The district court authorized Defendant to be prosecuted as an adult. The cases were consolidated for pleas and sentencings. The district court sentenced Defendant to terms of imprisonment and to a lifetime of supervision once he was released from prison. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that mandatory lifetime postrelease supervision for juveniles convicted of aggravated indecent liberties does not categorically constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that mandatory lifetime postrelease supervision for juveniles who have committed and are later convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child is categorically unconstitutional. View "State v. Dull" on Justia Law

by
In 2009, E.J.D. entered a plea of no contest to battery on juvenile detention officers. The court determined that the proceedings should be designated as an extended-jurisdiction juvenile prosecution and sentenced E.J.D. to a term in a juvenile correction facility and to an adult criminal sentence. The court stayed the adult criminal sentence on the condition that E.J.D. not violate the provisions of the juvenile sentence and on the condition that he not commit a new offense. The State subsequently moved to revoke the stay of execution of the adult sentence based on numerous disciplinary violations committed by E.J.D. Thereafter, E.J.D. moved for a lesser sentence and a durational departure from his sentence. The district court denied E.J.D.’s motion and ordered him committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statutory scheme does not allow modification of an adult sentence after a determination that a juvenile has violated the terms and conditions of an extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution; and (2) the court of appeals correctly determined that the evidence supported the district court’s decision to revoke the stay of execution of the adult sentence. View "In re E.J.D." on Justia Law

by
A.M.M.-H. was sentenced in an extended juvenile jurisdiction proceeding in which he was given both a juvenile sentence and an adult sentence. The adult sentence was stayed pending successful completion of his juvenile sentence. After A.M.M.-H. violated the terms of conditional release on his juvenile sentence the district judge revoked conditional release and ordered A.M.M.-H. to serve his adult prison sentence. The court of appeals affirmed the district court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) in this case, the district judge had discretion to determine whether A.M.M.-H.’s violation of the terms of conditional release warranted revocation of the stay of the adult sentence; and (2) because the record was unclear as to whether the district judge knew he had discretion not to execute the adult sentence upon a finding of violation of the terms of A.M.M.-H.’s conditional release, the case must be remanded for reconsideration of the State’s motion to revoke. View "In re A.M.M.-H." on Justia Law