In re Interest of Iyana P.
25 Neb. Ct. App. 439
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Juvenile Iyana P. was adjudicated under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(1) for third-degree assault and placed on 6 months’ probation on November 21, 2016.
- Probation order stated it "may automatically terminate on May 22, 2017 unless sooner extended or revoked for cause by the Court or unless a capias has been issued during the term of this probation."
- A juvenile warrant (capias) issued January 6, 2017 after Iyana was missing from court-ordered placement; she was later detained and moved through shelter and group-home placements.
- On April 25, 2017 the juvenile court entered an order that Iyana "shall remain under the supervision of a probation officer, for an open ended period of time," effectively extending/altering probation.
- Iyana moved to vacate the April 25 order, arguing the court changed her disposition without following Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-286(5) procedures; the juvenile court denied the motion.
- On appeal the Nebraska Court of Appeals found the court had changed probation without the statutory revocation procedure and that Iyana was denied due process; the order denying vacatur was reversed and remanded with directions to vacate the April 25 order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court lawfully changed Iyana’s probation without following § 43-286(5) procedures | Iyana: court extended/prolonged probation without a motion to revoke or required hearing, violating § 43-286(5) | State: change was part of continued dispositional process (or justified by prior capias) and notice existed | Court: Changing probation without filing a motion to revoke and following § 43-286(5) is impermissible; the extension was improper |
| Whether Iyana was denied due process by lack of a revocation hearing with confrontation rights | Iyana: no hearing was held, so she could not confront/cross-examine witnesses or contest alleged violations | State: argued notice and hearings sufficed (cited cases where despite procedural flaws process was adequate) | Court: Iyana was denied due process because no revocation motion/hearing occurred and she lacked opportunity to confront accusers |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Candice H., 284 Neb. 935 (de novo appellate review of juvenile cases)
- In re Interest of Alan L., 294 Neb. 261 (procedural flaws in revocation process may not rise to due process violation if juvenile had notice and opportunity to contest)
- In re Interest of Markice M., 275 Neb. 908 (court must follow § 43-286 procedures; changing probation requires a revocation motion and hearing)
- In re Interest of Torrey B., 6 Neb. App. 658 (juvenile court may not continue dispositional hearing and later alter disposition without statutory revocation procedure)