Com. v. B.H., a minor
138 A.3d 15
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- In Nov. 2013 B.H., a 17‑year‑old, admitted (Pa.R.J.C.P. 407) to sexual assault; the parties also entered a "finding of fact without adjudication" on a rape charge and agreed to a deferred disposition with GPS monitoring, treatment, and other conditions.
- The juvenile court accepted the agreement and entered an order memorializing the amended charge (sexual assault adjudication), the rape finding of fact, and extensive supervisory conditions; SORNA colloquy and paperwork were executed.
- B.H. repeatedly violated supervision (drug use, GPS violations, unsupervised internet/cellphone use, social‑media posts); the court repeatedly continued disposition and warned that violations could convert the rape finding to an adjudication requiring SORNA registration.
- On May 2, 2014 the juvenile court adjudicated B.H. delinquent on the rape charge at a probation‑violation disposition hearing and committed him to a YSA residential program.
- B.H. filed post‑dispositional motions; after denial he appealed. The Superior Court vacated the November 21, 2013 and May 2, 2014 orders and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Juvenile Court/Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rules permit a second adjudication at a probation‑violation disposition for the same conduct | Prohibits converting a prior "finding of fact" into a new adjudication in a violation hearing | Argued conversion was permissible given the deferred/conditional scheme the parties agreed to | Held no: juvenile rules do not authorize a separate second adjudication via probation‑violation disposition; the agreement was invalid |
| Whether Appellant received adequate colloquy that rape could later be adjudicated | Appellant: was not properly advised how/when the rape finding could be converted, violating due process | Commonwealth: parties agreed and Appellant executed SORNA addendum and forms | Court did not reach constitutional question after finding the agreement invalid |
| Whether adjudication at violation hearing was abuse of discretion given only technical, non‑sexual violations | Appellant: conversion was an abuse because violations were nuisance/technical and not new sexual misconduct | Commonwealth: repeated violations justified conversion to protect public and satisfy Juvenile Act goals | Court found it unnecessary to decide because the underlying deferred‑adjudication scheme itself was impermissible |
| Whether conversion violated double jeopardy absent a knowing waiver | Appellant: conversion punished same conduct twice without valid waiver | Commonwealth: argued Appellant consented to conditions and consequences | Court did not address double jeopardy after ruling the original agreement was invalid; vacated orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. S.M., 769 A.2d 542 (Pa. Super. 2001) (juvenile consent‑decree scheme is the only statutory alternative to formal adjudication and the court may not impose dispositions outside the Juvenile Act)
- In re J.G., 45 A.3d 1118 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review: juvenile court has broad discretion in disposition; will not be disturbed absent manifest abuse)
- Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156 (Pa. 2001) (procedural rules regarding post‑dispositional motions and appeal timing)