In re A.D.T. – Johnson – Affirmed

Background

At 13, A.D.T. pled guilty to first-degree premeditated murder in an extended juvenile jurisdiction prosecution (EJJP); court imposed juvenile disposition to age 22½ and an adult life sentence (25 years before parole) stayed pending compliance.
The juvenile court ordered a substance-abuse evaluation and recommended Pathways; KJCC never provided the full treatment due to programming limits and A.D.T. remained waitlisted.
Upon release, A.D.T. signed a conditional-release contract prohibiting drug use and outlining sanctions for violations.
In 2015, as an adult on conditional release, A.D.T. had two positive cocaine UAs; he was assessed and not referred to treatment after SASSI/ASAM evaluation.
The State moved to revoke the stay and execute the adult sentence under K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 38-2364(b); the court issued an ex parte revocation, later held a hearing, found the violations by a preponderance, and imposed the adult sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether revocation and imposition of adult sentence for two positive UAs violated due process/manifest injustice	A.D.T.: revocation was manifestly unjust because he never received court-ordered in-custody substance-abuse treatment and lacked clear notice that a positive UA would trigger life adult sentence	State: statutory scheme was followed; two positive UAs suffice to prove breach of conditional release; notice and hearing rights were honored	Court: Affirmed — statutory language of K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 38-2364(b) mandated revocation and execution of adult sentence after preponderance finding; sufficient notice found; manifest-injustice claim rejected
Whether failure to provide ordered treatment bars revocation	A.D.T.: lack of in-custody treatment deprived him of rehabilitation and caused the violation, rendering revocation unfair	State: provision of treatment irrelevant to whether a release condition was violated	Court: Rejected — absence of treatment did not negate the statutory trigger for revocation under the plain language of the statute
Whether judge had discretion to modify disposition after finding violation	A.D.T.: urged equitable relief/modification given circumstances	State: statutes leave no discretion once preponderance found unless State and defense agree to modify	Court: Held no discretion — statute requires mandatory imposition of adult sentence absent mutual agreement to modify
Whether statute itself is unconstitutional or otherwise invalid as applied to facts	A.D.T.: hinted at constitutional concerns (due process/Eighth Amendment) but did not press developed arguments	State: did not concede unconstitutionality; court noted lack of properly presented constitutional challenge	Held: Court declined to invalidate statute; constitutional challenges not developed and thus not decided (affirmed under statutory interpretation)

Key Cases Cited

In re E.J.D., 301 Kan. 790 (preponderance standard and review of revocation findings)
State v. Talkington, 301 Kan. 453 (definition of substantial competent evidence)
In re A.M.M.-H., 300 Kan. 532 (K.S.A. 38-2364(b) governs conditional-release violations in EJJP)
State v. Sprague, 303 Kan. 418 (issues raised but not argued are abandoned)
State ex rel. Tomasic v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, 265 Kan. 779 (courts cannot invalidate statutes merely as unwise)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (Eighth Amendment principles re: juveniles and life sentences)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (juvenile death penalty prohibition under Eighth Amendment)
State v. Dull, 302 Kan. 32 (Eighth Amendment holding re: lifetime supervision)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and serious medical needs)
Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (due process—commitment must relate to purpose of confinement)