Summary 2006 WY 101

Summary of Decision issued August 14, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library for assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: In the Interest of CT, Minor: CT v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 101

Docket Number: C-05-14, C-05-15

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge.

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Ken M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna Domonkos, Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Koski.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Leda M. Pojman, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Pojman.

Issue: Whether the juvenile court violated Appellant’s right to due process by failing to advise him of the terms and conditions of probation. Whether the juvenile court erred by failing to consider a predispositional report prior to disposition. Whether the juvenile court erred by failing to select a statutory sanction level and by failing to impose the appropriate terms of probation for that sanction level.

Holding: The appeal challenges certain procedures and orders in a juvenile court matter. Appellant’s claim that his constitutional due process rights have been violated is reviewed de novo. He has the burden of demonstrating both that he has a protected interest and that such interest has been affected in an impermissible way. Sentencing decisions are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. A court may not enter an illegal sentence. If there was no objection below, the Court reviews alleged errors under the plain error standard.
Whether the juvenile court violated Appellant’s right to due process by failing to advise him of the terms and conditions of probation: Although the United States Supreme Court and the Wyoming Supreme Court have held that due process applies in juvenile proceedings and in probation revocation hearings, neither court has specifically delineated the extent to which such protections are applicable during the dispositional stage of the juvenile proceedings. In the instant case, the Court concluded that the juvenile court did not violate the appellant’s right to due process of the law in fashioning the probation conditions as it did. The record reflects the recommendations of the multi-disciplinary tem (MDT) and the preliminary findings of the juvenile probation officer were included in the court’s order which meets the statutory purpose of designing individualized dispositions. Appellant “signed off” on the probation conditions imposed by DFS, so he had actual knowledge of them.
Whether the juvenile court erred by failing to consider a predispositional report prior to disposition and by failing to select a statutory sanction level: The Court combined these issues because similar reasoning applied to both issues lead the Court to reversal. Wyoming’s Juvenile Justice Act contains clear mandates as to both predisposition reports and sanction levels. A predisposition study was ordered but there was no indication in the record that it was ever accomplished or that the court reviewed such a report prior to disposition. The statutory sanction level for felony property destruction is level three which provides for a maximum probationary term of twelve months. The court twice entered dispositional orders placing Appellant on probation for an indefinite period, a sanction unavailable to the court unless expressly justified in writing on the record. The Court has held that the Juvenile Justice Act does not require absolutely strict compliance but it cannot be “ignored with impunity.” The district court erred in failing to consider a predisposition report and in failing to assign a sanction level and to justify deviation from the appropriate statutory sanction level.

C.J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court.

Reversed and remanded.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/of47h .