State v. V.H.
2013 Ark. 344
| Ark. | 2013Background
- In 2003 V.H., age 16, pleaded no contest in juvenile court to second-degree sexual assault; adjudicated delinquent and committed to youth services with sex-offender treatment and probation.
- In 2005 the court ordered V.H. to register as a moderate-risk sex offender; his case was dismissed in 2007.
- V.H. petitioned under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-356(h) in 2007 to remove his name; the court ordered a risk assessment and later reclassified him Level 1 (low).
- In April 2012 V.H. filed a second § 9-27-356(h) petition seeking removal from the registry; the State moved to dismiss for lack of juvenile-court jurisdiction, arguing petitions must be filed on the 21st birthday.
- The Baxter County Circuit Court granted V.H.’s 2012 petition and removed his name; the State appealed, raising (1) whether the State could bring the appeal under the appellate rules and (2) whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the petition when V.H. was 25.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court held the State’s appeal was a collateral (civil) proceeding not subject to Criminal Rule 3 and affirmed that § 9-27-356(h) permits petitioning after age 21 while jurisdiction exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (V.H.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State’s appeal was proper without complying with Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 3 | Appeal improper unless Rule 3 satisfied; juvenile appeals mirror criminal appeals | Appeal is collateral/civil in nature so Rule 3 not required | Majority: appeal arises from collateral proceeding; Rule 3 not required; appeal proper |
| Whether circuit court had jurisdiction to consider petition when petitioner was 25 | § 9-27-356(h) requires petition on 21st birthday; no jurisdiction after juvenile court loses control | § 9-27-356(h) allows petition "at any time while the court has jurisdiction... or when the juvenile turns twenty-one, whichever is later"; court retained jurisdiction to hear petition | Court: statute’s plain language and disjunctive “or” allow petition after 21 while court has jurisdiction; jurisdiction existed |
| Whether reading § 9-27-356(h) to permit post-21 petitions leads to absurd results | Narrow reading (only on 21st birthday) avoids perpetual jurisdiction and other oddities | Narrow construction would render statutory language meaningless and frustrate legislative purpose | Court: narrow interpretation absurd; gives effect to legislature’s intent to allow later petitions |
| Whether Amendment 80 grants separate jurisdictional basis (alternative argument) | State contested applicability | V.H. alternatively argued Amendment 80 conferred jurisdiction | Court decided on statutory interpretation; no need to rely on Amendment 80 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. A.G., 383 S.W.3d 317 (Ark. 2011) (limits on State’s interlocutory appeals in delinquency context)
- State v. Nichols, 216 S.W.3d 114 (Ark. 2005) (State’s appellate rights are constrained by Rule 3)
- State v. K.H., 368 S.W.3d 46 (Ark. 2010) (dismissal of State appeal in delinquency matter not covered by Rule 3)
- State v. Webb, 281 S.W.3d 273 (Ark. 2008) (appeal of expungement deemed civil collateral proceeding; Rule 3 inapplicable)
- State v. Burnett, 249 S.W.3d 141 (Ark. 2007) (appeal from sealing record is collateral civil appeal; Rule 3 not required)