36 A.3d 321
Del.2012Background
- Brown, a juvenile at the time, pled guilty to Robbery First Degree and Conspiracy Second Degree; the State nolle pros’d two remaining charges.
- Family Court extended jurisdiction over Brown until age 21 and sentenced him to Glen Mills, 12 months' Level IV juvenile placement, 90 days of aftercare with an ankle monitor, and 12 months of adult probation.
- The court ordered adult probation to begin while Brown would be 18 at some point during the term, effectively imposing adult consequences at outset.
- Brown argues the Family Court lacked authority to impose adult probation immediately after juvenile adjudication; the issue was not raised below but reviewed for plain error.
- The governing statute, 10 Del. C. § 928, expressly provides only two circumstances under which a juvenile may receive adult consequences; the Court holds the initial sentence to adult probation exceeded the statute and must be corrected on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Family Court could impose adult probation at initial sentencing. | Brown contends no authority. | Court did not have authority under § 928. | Reversed; authority not permitted at initial sentencing; remanded for correction. |
| Whether § 928 confines adult consequences to two circumstances only. | Brown relies on the statute’s limited provisions. | The statute’s structure warrants the two exclusive circumstances. | Statute constrains initial imposition of adult consequences; Court adopted expressio unius rationale. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. State, 5 A.3d 612 (Del. 2010) (citation used for plain-error standard and review principles)
- Leatherbury v. Greenspan, 939 A.2d 1284 (Del. 2007) (statutory construction principles and jurisdictional concepts)
- Hughes v. State, 653 A.2d 241 (Del. 1994) (procedural and statutory interpretation principles in Delaware)