157 Conn.App. 826
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- A seventeen-year-old transgender female was adjudicated delinquent for assault and committed to DCF for up to 18 months.
- DCF filed a motion to transfer her to a DOC facility under § 17a-12(a) due to dangerousness.
- The trial court held evidentiary hearings, denied the motion to dismiss, and ordered transfer to Niantic (a female DOC facility).
- The court conducted six days of hearings, applying § 17a-12(a) to transfer the respondent to DOC.
- The respondent challenged § 17a-12(a) as vague and violative of due process, and attacked the plea as not knowing and voluntary.
- The respondent was returned to DCF custody and would age out of the system within the year, raising mootness concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of §17a-12(a) as applied | Angel R. argues statute is vague, failing fair notice. | DCF contends statute provides core prohibited conduct and notice. | Not void for vagueness as applied. |
| Due process and standard of proof for transfer | Angel R. contends transfer harms liberty; requires higher burden. | DCF argues standard may be preponderance and procedure adequate. | Transfer requires evidence greater than preponderance; DCF failed; judgment reversed. |
| Right to jury trial in transfer | Angel R. seeks jury trial because DOC confinement resembles criminal process. | DCF asserts no jury trial right in transfer proceedings. | No jury trial requirement; judge-alone transfer hearing satisfies due process. |
| Plea knowing and voluntary | Angel R. argues transfer contingency should have been explained as a direct consequence of the plea. | Transfer is collateral/consequential, not a direct consequence of the plea. | Plea was knowing and voluntary; transfer contingency attenuated from direct consequences. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Steven M., 264 Conn. 747 (2003) (mootness and due process in §17a-12(a) context; best interest and competency considerations)
- McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1966) (jury trial not required in juvenile delinquency; transfer hearings modeled similarly)
- In re Jason C., 255 Conn. 565 (2001) (due process and canvassing requirements for juveniles)
- In re Fabian A., 106 Conn. App. 151 (2008) (juvenile plea canvass and substantive protections)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (clear and convincing standard for termination of parental rights analogy)
- Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980) (grievous loss and changes in confinement invoke due process protections)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor due process balancing test)
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (intermediate standard of proof for highly important interests)
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966) (due process in juvenile proceedings; essentials of fair treatment)
- In re Appeal of Bailey, 158 Conn. 439 (1969) (earlier framework for juvenile transfer into penal settings)