In Re Keith G.
601 A.2d 1107
Md.
1992
Check Treatment

*1 merger on the record. But here such notation was neither constitutionally required nor compelled under the common law to assure both fairness in proceedings justice the Petitioners. place

We no on imprimatur all Special Court of Appeals regarding said merger opinion.5 But we are in accord with the it judgments rendered. The judgments Special Court of are Appeals

AFFIRMED WITH COSTS.

601 A.2d 1107 In re KEITH G. Term, Sept. No. 60 1991. Appeals

Court of Maryland. Feb. example, Special Appeals 5. For the Court of declared: concept merger inapposite proper application [T]he Maryland’s Juvenile Causes Act. Montrail, But, Md.App. (1991). In re qualified Court that view later. It observed: howеver, beyond imagination, It is not juve- the realm of that a judge might disregard spirit nile court the letter and the aof impose separate "punishments" Juvenile Causes single Act and for a part act. judge clearly Such action on the aof would improper. Jones, citing Id. at Breed v. 421 U.S. 532- Cf. 1779, 1787-1788, (1975) "applying 95 S.Ct. 44 L.Ed.2d 346 as jeopardy prohibition, pertаins Fifth Amendment double as it to multi ple prosecutions, juvenile delinquency proceedings____” *2 (J. Joseph Atty. Gen. Brockmeyer, Asst. Cathleen C. brief) Baltimore, peti- Gen., on Curran, Jr., both Atty. tioner. Felipé Anderson,

José Asst. Public Defender (Stephen E. Harris, Defender, Public brief) both on Baltimore, for re- spondent.

Argued MURPHY, C.J., before ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, McAULIFFE, CHASANOW and KARWACKI, JJ., and CHARLES E. ORTH, Jr., Judge of the Court of Appeals (Retired) of MD Specially Assigned.

MURPHY, Judge. Chief question The presented is whether dismissal of a juvenile delinquency petition is an appropriate sanction where the intake officer’s ‍​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‍preliminary exceeded, inquiry without a order, requirement the time prescribed by Maryland (1984, Code 1991 Cum.Supp.), 3-810 of the Courts and *3 Judicial Proceеdings section, Article. That a part of the Act, Juvenile Causes provides in pertinent part: “(a) Except as provided in (b) subsection section, this the intake officer shall receive:

(1) Complaints from person or agency having knowl- edge of facts which may cause a person subject to the jurisdiction court;

[*] [*] [*] [*] [*] [*] “(c)(1) Exceрt as otherwise provided subsection, in this in considering the complaint, the intake officer shall make a preliminary within 15 inquiry days as to whether the court has jurisdiction and whether judicial action inis the best public interests of the or the child. The intake officer may, after such in inquiry and accordance with this section:

(i) Authorize the filing petition; (ii) Conduct a further investigation into allegations of the complaint;

(iii) Propose an informal adjustment matter; or (iv) Refuse authorization to file a petition. investi- conduct a further

“(e)(1) intake officer The preliminary upon complaint if gation based inquiry that further intake officer concludes inquiry, court has whether the in order to determine necessary inter- is in the best judicial action or whether jurisdiction child. public or the ests completed and

(2) investigation shall be The further days, within 10 unless the intake officer decision made the court.” is extended that time

I. felony theft alleging a complaint February On Department offenses was filed with and related (DJS) Twenty-six days Kеith G. against Juvenile Services his later, conferred with Keith G. and following that Immediately the first time. parents for that a formal conference, intake officer recommended against filed Subse- delinquency petition juvenile. being on March petition filed quent the intake ground moved to dismiss ‍​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‍it on the G. in completed was not accord- preliminary inquiry 3-810. requirements ance with the mandatory Division of the District the Juvenile On June granted the motion sitting Montgomery County Court petition. appeal, Special On the Court and dismissed the did not held that the trial court abuse Appeals affirmed. It for the failure of the dismissing its discretion investigation within required complete officer *4 3-810, having and withоut ob- prescribed by the time § G., 86 Keith tained an extension from court. Re: (1991). We certiorari Md.App. 662, granted 587 A.2d 1164 important presented issue the case. public to consider the II. comply that it did not acknowledges The State It 3-810. neverthe requirements time § a proper argues its is less sanction, pointing out that the statute contains no sanction for its violation. It asserts that when deciding whether dismissal of a juvenile petition is the appropriate sanction, we must examine the “totality of circumstances,” in- cluding legislative purpose underlying the Juvenile Act, Causes namely, provide for treatment, training, and rehabilitation consistent with the juvenile’s best interests protection and the of the public.

Keith G. contends that both the legislative and the history mandatory language of 3-810 indicate that dismissal of the juvenile petition is the correct sanction where State fails to comply with the time requirements 3-810.

III. A. To ascertain and effectuate the legislative inten tion, a statute is to be construеd reasonably with reference aim, to its purpose, or policy. Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 505, 513, 309 Md. (1987). A.2d 628 Addi tionally, the statutory language must be construed in light governed context within the overall statutory scheme; is, the statutory language course, the primary source for determining the legislative intent. Harford v. County University, 525, 529, 318 Md. 569 A.2d 649 (1990); Comptroller Rucker v. thе Treasury, 315 Md. 559, 564, State, (1989); Jones v. 311 Md. (1988). Thus, 535 A.2d 471 in examining the statutory 3-810, language we look of the Juvenile Causes Act to determine whether dismissal of action is an appropriate sanction for a violation of the See In re provisions. statute’s Patrick 312 Md. In re (1988); 310 Md. (1987). A.2d 35 Maryland’s juvenile Code, law embodied in Title Subtitle 8 of the Courts Article. 3-802(a)(l) Section states thаt a primary consideration in a juvenile proceeding is “[t]o care, for the protection, and wholesome mental and *5 “a pro to and ensure of children” development physical treatment, and rehabilitation consistent training, of gram protection of interests and the the child’s best statutes, juvenile Another interеst.” public of to the taint 3-802(a)(2), is remove forth in as set § from behavior consequences criminal criminality and the 3- delinquent acts.1 Section have committed children who shall Causes 802(b) requires that Act] “[Juvenile See purposes.” these to effectuate liberally construed (“the over supra, 310 Md. at 527 A.2d is scheme riding goal Maryland’s juvenile they so that delinquent juveniles and treat rehabilitate Mat productive society”); members useful and become (“The Davis, (1973) ter of Md.App. is does Act that a child of the Juvenile Causes raison d’etre and delinquent commits a act a crime he not commit when punished is not to but is a criminal. He therefore to be made aware and treatment supervision afforded the wrong is so as to be amenable right is and what what laws.”). criminal

B. a 3-810, procedure intake critical juvenile Under § officer juvenile system, part of 3-802, legislature purposes has enacted § 1. To further 3-810, statutes, juveniles. special For address the needs like 3~823(a) 3-816(c) require juveniles example, that should be and §§ transported institutions with criminals nor incarcerated neither 3-820(b) primarily of criminals. Section used for the confinement provides making disposition of a cause after the delinquent, priorities adjudicated ... are "[t]he has been treatment, [ensuring] public safety [providing] program mental, ‍​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‍physical, training, best suited and rehabilitаtion public More with the interest." welfare of the child consistent moral over, 3-824(a)(1) adjudication as a delin an of a child states that impose any of quent does not is not a criminal conviction and ordinarily Final imposed a criminal conviction. “civil disabilities” 3-828(a) police concerning a ly, provides record child is that “[a] confidential”; separate those of it maintained from shall be adults; divulged except order of not be and that its contents court. must determine whether the court has jurisdiction and *6 action is in judicial whether the best interests the public Indeed, or child. we In re Patrick recognized 488, supra, 810, 312 Md. at 540 A.2d that information provided by the intake оfficer was valuable in determining should be filed. See also In Re Laurence petition whether a T . 621, 625-26, 285 (1979) (“intake Md. officer has substantial discretion in whether determining to file a a petition regarding particular child”). 3-810(a)(l), the

Under intake officer receives initial from a or complaint person agency having knowledge of facts a may subject which cause child to jurisdic- to the tion 3-810(e)(l) provides court.2 Section that follow- receipt complaint, of the ing the intake officer must make a preliminary inquiry within 15 to days jurisdiction determine 3-810(e)(l) and propriety proceeding. of the Section and (e)(2) intake authorize the officer conduct further 10 investigation days, within unless that time is extended the court.

C. said We have that the foremost repeatedly consideration in a juvenile proceeding after a determination delinquen is cy children with a program treatment and A., supra, rehabilitation. See In re Patrick 487, 312 Md. at W., supra, Keith 540 A.2d 810. Md. at 527 A.2d held that we dismissal was petition where impropеr adjudicatory hearing not held was period prescribed by within the time Rule Maryland 914. Although the Rule required hearing that the “shall” be held complaint brought by department 2. If a is a local of social services alleges and that a in need court’s child is of the assistance because of parental neglect, immediately petition the intake officer must file Moreover, 3-810(b)(2). alleges complaint with the court. if a that a child or over committed has an act would be crime of adult, if an violence committed immediate- must ly complaint Attorney forward the review State’s and cases, 3-810(b)(3)(i). possible action. other In all the initial deci- sion is whether file a in the discretion of the officer. mandatory, and thus was period, time prescribed within mandatory yet “a statute or rule said that we to comply for failure as a sanction require dismissal not also In 527 A.2d 35.3 See Id. at provisions.” 540 A.2d We Patrick, Md. at supra, re purpose Maryland’s the special explained by dismissal ordinarily best served is not stаtutes absent proper and that indeed proceedings circumstances.” “extraordinary egregious 35. The Court further Md. at supra, proper is a deciding whether dismissal that when noted aof mandatory requirements for violation sanction “totality of the rule, must examine the judge the trial circumstances,” overriding purpose keеping mind the *7 statute.4 Id. juvenile the 401, 430 H., 290 Md. Dewayne in In Re: A.2d

Similarly, of a was (1981), juvenile we held that dismissal 76 disposition scheduled hearing where the was inappropriate 915. While permitted by Maryland than Rule day one later ‍​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‍of the rule was manda- acknowledged language that the we in light was inappropriate we found tory, Act, the and because the purpose Juvenile Causes W., Hicks, 310, State v. 403 A.2d 356 In Keith we noted that Md. 3. (1979), appropriate an an held that dismissal of indictment was purpose a of Rule 746 because the sanction for statute was "intended to ... the However, violation governing put regulation teeth into a new 318, assignment cases for trial.” Id. at 403 A.2d 356. of criminal recognizеd that the considerations in in Keith we We are from those in the criminal context. context distinct 746, established to in to Rule Rule 914 was stated that contrast D., goals Darryl promote In 308 Md. 3-810. Re rights (1987)("although constitutional incident certain of the A.2d juvenile delinquency proceedings, prosecutions apply in to criminal nature”). proceеdings in State are civil rather than criminal this 1-201(a) Maryland provides Rule that when rule conduct, otherwise, "by prohibits the word ‘shall’ or mandates or noncompliance prescribed by consequences of are those these the rules or prescribed, may consequences the court If are statute. no consequnces сompel compliance rule or determine the with the totality light noncompliance of the circumstances in of the rule.” hearing function of a disposition punish was but to program of treatment and reha- bilitation. Id. at 430 A.2d 76.

D. In support argument, his Keith G. relies on recent decisions this Court and the Special Appeals, Court of held that dismissal of the juvenile petition which was the proper sanction where the State failed to comply with time statutory limitations. He cites In Re Patrick B., (1990); supra; Md.App. In Re Steven 578 A.2d 223 S., (1980). and In Re 286 Md. James These cases are inapposite; explain. we B., A. and the courts Patrick Steven affirmed dismis- juvenile petitions sal of the whеre the State deliberately failed to conduct a preliminary investigation required by as Although the statute. Keith G. the factual dissim- concedes case, these cases and the he ilarity present argues, between nevertheless, that “failure observe clear procedure mandate the intake directions warrants dismis- Here, however, sal.” the issue concerns not the absence preliminary investigation, but timeliness preliminary investigation. S., Nor does supra, support In Re James dismissal as There, appropriate sanction this case. we held that a must dismissed for the juvenile proceeding failure of the *8 State to the 3- comply mandatory provisions with § 812(b).5 3-812(b) in Concluding that was the nature of a § limitations, mandatory statute of we considered the lan- statute, i.e., filed,” guage prepared “shall be and and similarity provisions providing to other of the Code for the example, statutes of limitation. For Court observed 3-812(b), provides that like 5-101 of the Courts Article § § years,” that “a civil action of law shall be filed within three 3-812(b) provides "[p]etitions alleging delinquency 5. Section that ... prepared by Attorney days shall be and filed the State’s within ... receipt after the of a referral from the intake officer.” assault, for or battery, and 5-105 that “an action libel § year.” slander shall be filed within one contrast, 3-810 states that if the By preliminаry investi- § permitted further the statute gation investigation by and complete, more than 25 the intake officer requires days language must obtain an extension from the court. The S., in James distinguishable holding 3-810 is from our § 5-105, language legis- and the 5-101 and because the §§ authorized, court, lature has an extension through by the Thus, days investigation. more than 25 to cоnduct the it is applied clear that if 3-810 was to be like a statute of limitations, the legislature empowered the would not have period court to extend the time for the intake officer to his complete investigation.

IV. language mandatory, legisla- The 3-810 ture intended the intake officer faithfully comply that in requirements equаlly the time set forth the statute. It is legislature recognized investigation clear that that completed twenty- not within by might and, reason, by five for that authorized an extension days any examining court order without time limitation. Patrick circumstances,” supra, see In re “totality 312 Md. at that recognizing is the special purpose behind statutes rehаbili- children, delinquent tation and treatment of we hold that by this would not be served the sanction of dismis- Here, in preliminary sal this case. investigation culminated the recommendation that protection G. is need of the and benefits of the To him system. deny protection court because one later than investigation completеd day permitted was preju- 3-810 is he was not by improper, especially where legislature diced As the did delay.

the sanction of dismissal for failure to obtain an extension order, point its silence on this glean we from appropriate applied sanction to be is an administrative

548 officer, if after warranted offending аgainst one said in In Re As we of all the circumstances. consideration A.2d “the Md. at supra, ordinarily best statute is not Maryland’s juvenile “[o]nly and that proceedings”; served should circumstances egregious extraordinary most the sanction for ... dismissal as to dictate allowed A.2d at 106 and rule.” ‍​​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‍Id. procedural of a violation REVERSED; TO THE CASE REMANDED JUDGMENT TO APPEALS WITH DIRECTIONS OF SPECIAL COURT THE DIVISION TO JUVENILE THE MATTER REMAND COURT, IN MONTGOMERY SITTING THE DISTRICT OF IN ACCORD- COUNTY, PROCEEDINGS FOR FURTHER IN THIS COURT THIS OPINION. COSTS WITH ANCE BE TO SPECIAL APPEALS IN THE COURT OF AND KEITH PAID BY G.

ELDRIDGE, dissenting: Judge the trial and with judge conclusion of I agree with Special Ap for the Court opinion Robert Bell’s Judge (1991), 662, 587 A.2d 1164 G., Md.App. re Keith peals, In ordinarily delinquency petition the dismissal of officer exceed the intake sanction where appropriate is the (1974, 1989 Code by Maryland time limit mandated ed the the Courts and 3-810 of Cum.Supp.), Repl.Vol., Article, аnd where Proceedings Judicial court as of time from the an extension to obtain failed fact, express it is the 3-810(e)(2). In for in provided con of time which extension for a court-ordered provision intent that dismissal legislative firms the the intake the sanction where ordinarily be should If the time limit. Gen exceeds investigation the sanc that dismissal had intended Assembly eral provided to have no reason tion, have been there would court-ordered extension.