State of West Virginia v. J.S.
233 W. Va. 198
| W. Va. | 2014Background
- J.S., a juvenile, admitted burglary (Feb 11, 2013) and was placed on post-adjudicatory home confinement pending disposition; a second petition charged battery (filed Feb 27, 2013).
- After the battery charge, the court removed J.S. from his home and confined him; a joint adjudicatory hearing on battery and disposition hearing for burglary were held June 7, 2013.
- Victim testified to repeated bullying and a physical attack; the court found the victim credible and adjudicated J.S. delinquent for battery; disposition was commitment to a level 4 secure juvenile facility until age 21, to run concurrently with the burglary disposition.
- Diagnostic/MDT evaluations (performed under Rule 40) reported bullying while confined; Rubenstein Center refused placement due to bullying; prosecutor recommended secure detention.
- J.S. appealed alleging multiple procedural errors (failure to hold detention/preliminary hearings, untimely adjudicatory order, hearsay at disposition, failure to use least restrictive placement, failure to advise of appeal rights, and failure to schedule review hearings). The Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (J.S.) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to hold detention / preliminary hearings | Court failed to hold detention hearing for post-adjudicatory violation and failed to hold preliminary hearing on battery | Post-adjudicatory detention falls under Home Confinement Act and summary hearing requirement; record presumes preliminary hearing was held or properly waived; any errors were harmless and issues waived for failure to object below | Waived where not raised below; post-adjudicatory Home Confinement violations require prompt summary hearing, but failure here was harmless given lack of prejudice; preliminary hearing presumed held or waived under presumption of regularity |
| 2. Untimely adjudicatory order (Rule 33) | Adjudicatory order in burglary was filed late (16 days after admission); J.S. argues this voids detention or requires release | Rule 33 requires written findings within 7 (+7) days; but J.S. did not raise the issue below and suffered no prejudice; court warned J.S. detention could follow if he reoffended | Waived for failure to raise below; late filing was harmless absent prejudice |
| 3. Consideration of hearsay / diagnostic evaluation at disposition | Court improperly relied on hearsay in diagnostic/MDT evaluation (bullying reports) | Disposition hearings are analogous to sentencing where evidentiary rules are relaxed; Rule 40 expressly contemplates diagnostic evaluations for disposition | Court may consider relevant hearsay and all information from Rule 40 diagnostic evaluations; use of the MDT report was proper |
| 4. Least restrictive placement / commitment to level 4 facility | Court should have committed J.S. to a less restrictive facility (e.g., Elkins Mountain School) or released him now | Court considered statutory factors and Dostert criteria, attempted less restrictive option (home confinement), found danger to others, and provided step-down possibility | No abuse of discretion: disposition complied with statutory and Dostert requirements; level 4 placement affirmed |
| 5. Failure to advise of right to appeal (W. Va. Code §49-5-13(e)) | Court did not inform J.S. of right to appeal as required by statute | Counsel filed a timely appeal; many jurisdictions treat failure to advise as harmless unless defendant is prejudiced | Failure to advise is reversible only if prejudicial; here no prejudice because counsel timely appealed |
| 6. Failure to schedule Rule 43 judicial review | Court did not schedule periodic MDT judicial review every three months after out-of-home placement | Rule 43 reviews occur at least every three months, but the appeal was filed before the first review was due and there is no record of denial | Issue premature and not properly preserved for appellate review |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Smith v. Boles, 150 W. Va. 1, 146 S.E.2d 585 (1965) (presumption of regularity of court proceedings)
- State ex rel. Cooper v. Caperton, 196 W. Va. 208, 470 S.E.2d 162 (1996) (issues must be raised distinctly below to preserve them)
- State ex rel. D. D. H. v. Dostert, 165 W. Va. 448, 269 S.E.2d 401 (1980) (court must make specific dispositional findings when incarceration is contemplated)
- State v. Mechling, 219 W. Va. 366, 633 S.E.2d 311 (2006) (standard of review for bench trial findings and dispositional orders)
- State v. Kenneth Y., 217 W. Va. 167, 617 S.E.2d 517 (2005) (statutory options for juvenile disposition and standard for disposition review)