In re A.M.M.-H.
300 Kan. 532
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Juvenile A.M.M.-H. pled guilty to aggravated indecent liberties and aggravated intimidation; adjudicated in an extended juvenile jurisdiction (EJJ) case.
- Court imposed a juvenile disposition (24 months confinement + 24 months aftercare) and an adult sentence (59 and 18 months concurrent) stayed pending successful completion of the juvenile sentence.
- Upon release, A.M.M.-H. signed conditional release and intensive supervision contracts containing conditions (e.g., report to officer, obey laws, curfew) and warnings that violations could lead to court action.
- State alleged multiple violations of conditional release (failure to report police contact, curfew violation, unpaid fees, prohibited associations), sought revocation of the juvenile stay, and execution of the adult sentence.
- District court held an evidentiary hearing, found A.M.M.-H. violated his conditional release, revoked the stay, and ordered execution of the adult sentence; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Kansas Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether conditional-release violations constitute violations of the juvenile sentence and whether revocation of the adult-stay is mandatory or discretionary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether violating conditional-release terms equals violating the juvenile sentence | A.M.M.-H.: Conditional-release terms, set by the commissioner/Juvenile Justice Authority, are not part of the judge's juvenile sentence and thus cannot trigger execution of the adult sentence | State: Juvenile sentence included aftercare; conditional release is release for aftercare, so violating conditional release violates the juvenile sentence | Court: Violating conditional release is violating the aftercare component of the juvenile sentence and thus is a violation of the juvenile sentence |
| Whether K.S.A. 38-2364(b) makes execution of the adult sentence mandatory upon finding a violation | A.M.M.-H.: Once a conditional-release term is found violated, lifting the stay is mandatory regardless of who imposed the condition | State: Prior appellate reading treated execution as mandatory after a finding of violation | Court: Statute is permissive before a hearing; if juvenile requests a hearing and the court finds violation by a preponderance, execution is mandatory unless prosecutor and defense agree to modify; if the court schedules a hearing preemptively or no challenge is made, the judge retains discretion |
| Whether district court abused discretion in ordering execution here | A.M.M.-H.: Judge may have thought execution was mandatory and thus abused discretion by not considering alternatives | State: Court acted within statutory authority after finding violation at hearing | Court: Remanded because record unclear whether judge appreciated his discretion; court must reconsider the motion to revoke with proper exercise of discretion |
| Standard of proof required at revocation hearing | A.M.M.-H.: Argued insufficient procedures/standard applied | State: Hearing was proper under statute | Court: Hearing requires preponderance of the evidence; that finding triggers mandatory revocation/execution when the juvenile requests the hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Frierson, 298 Kan. 1005 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- State v. Brooks, 298 Kan. 672 (plain-meaning approach to statutes)
- State v. Urban, 291 Kan. 214 (statutory construction principles)
- In re Adoption of H.C.H., 297 Kan. 819 (prefer specific statutory provision over general one)
- State v. Horton, 292 Kan. 437 (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- State v. J.H., 40 Kan. App. 2d 643 (Court of Appeals' earlier interpretation treating execution as mandatory upon finding violation)