In the Matter of the Welfare of: S.L.S., Child.
A16-355
| Minn. Ct. App. | Nov 7, 2016Background
- Juvenile S.L.S. pleaded guilty to one count of third-degree criminal sexual conduct after an 11‑year‑old victim reported digital penetration while S.L.S. was babysitting.
- Plea agreement provided that if S.L.S. "is successful at treatment" at the County Home School AFSHS outpatient program, he would receive a stay of adjudication.
- At plea hearing, court questioned S.L.S. about waiver of trial rights and factual basis; neither dispositional consequences nor a written waiver were discussed on the record.
- S.L.S. failed outpatient treatment (poor participation, minimization, new disclosures) and was terminated; probation recommended long‑term residential placement.
- District court adjudicated S.L.S. delinquent, placed him on supervised probation conditioned on completing residential treatment, and incorporated a county report in its findings.
- On appeal S.L.S. challenged plea validity, alleged breach of the plea agreement, sought plea withdrawal, argued inadequate dispositional findings, and raised ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether S.L.S.'s guilty plea was knowing and intelligent | Plea invalid because court failed to advise on dispositional consequences (no on‑record or written advisal) | Counsel had nearly two months with S.L.S.; presumption that counsel advised client suffices; no evidence of prejudice | Plea was knowing and intelligent; presumption counsel advised applies in juvenile setting; no manifest injustice shown |
| Whether adjudication violated plea agreement | Agreement entitled him to stay of adjudication beyond outpatient failure; adjudication premature | Agreement conditioned stay on success at outpatient program; failure justified adjudication | No breach; district court did not abuse discretion by adjudicating delinquent after outpatient failure |
| Whether district court erred by denying plea‑withdrawal without hearing | Denial improper; plea invalid | District court lacked jurisdiction after appeal; procedural defects in seeking discretionary review | Court declined to reach merits of district court’s denial because appellant failed to seek proper discretionary review; appellate review of plea validity permitted and addressed separately |
| Whether dispositional order (out‑of‑home placement) had sufficient findings | Findings insufficient to show required five-part analysis under juvenile rules | State conceded findings inadequate and asked for remand for proper findings | Reversed in part and remanded: disposition vacated for inadequate written findings; remand for specific findings required by rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 449 N.W.2d 180 (Minn. 1989) (record at plea can be reviewed on direct appeal to assess plea validity)
- Beaulieu v. State, 859 N.W.2d 275 (Minn. 2015) (plain‑error review for unobjected‑to Rule advisories; requires showing prejudice)
- Drysdale v. Tahash, 154 N.W.2d 691 (Minn. 1967) (presumption that court‑appointed counsel advises client in good faith about plea consequences)
- Kim v. State, 434 N.W.2d 263 (Minn. 1989) (standard of review for denial of motion to withdraw plea)
- In re Welfare of J.R.Z., 648 N.W.2d 241 (Minn. App. 2002) (district court has broad discretion in juvenile dispositions)
- In re Welfare of D.T.P., 685 N.W.2d 709 (Minn. App. 2004) (out‑of‑home placements require findings addressing five specified factors)