Matter of S.G.-H.M. Jr., A Youth., 2021 MT 176

In 2006, when he was 16, S.G.-H.M. was charged in Youth Court under Montana’s Extended Jurisdiction Prosecution Act (EJPA) for possession of explosives and criminal endangerment; he admitted to the charges.
The court imposed a hybrid EJPA disposition: juvenile formal probation until age 23 and concurrent six-year adult deferred sentences stayed pursuant to § 41-5-1604, MCA.
In July 2013 (age 23) the court revoked the stay in a modified form and indicated supervision would be with Adult Probation and Parole; the record contains no formal order transferring jurisdiction from Youth Court to District Court under § 41-5-1605(3), MCA.
In January 2014 the court revoked the deferred sentences and imposed DOC time, noting supervisory responsibility had been transferred to Adult Probation and Parole.
The youth turned 25 in 2015 while in custody. In 2017 (age 27) the State filed a third revocation petition; the youth moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because no transfer to District Court had been made. The court denied dismissal, revoked the suspended portion of his sentence, and he appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a court retains jurisdiction over an EJPA youth-court proceeding after the youth turns 25 if the youth court did not transfer the case under § 41-5-1605(3), MCA.	No—youth-court jurisdiction terminates at 25 and, because no statutory transfer occurred, no court had jurisdiction to continue proceedings after that birthday.	Yes—the revocation and implementation of the adult sentence in 2013 (and designation of adult supervision) effectively or automatically transferred jurisdiction to the district court; any failure to issue a transfer order was a mere formal defect.	The court held that statutory transfer is mandatory and requires an affirmative act by the youth court; no transfer occurred, so youth-court jurisdiction ended at age 25 and post-25 proceedings were void. The revocation judgment and sentence were vacated.

In re A.D.B., 305 P.3d 739 (Mont. 2013) (defines jurisdiction as the court’s fundamental authority to hear and adjudicate proceedings)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (juveniles are constitutionally different from adults for sentencing purposes)
State v. Keefe, 478 P.3d 830 (Mont. 2021) (discusses juvenile sentencing jurisprudence and Montgomery)
Comm’r of Political Practices v. Bannan, 354 P.3d 601 (Mont. 2015) (standard of review for motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
State v. Heath, 90 P.3d 426 (Mont. 2004) (sentence legality reviewed de novo)