*1 Annot., 727- 95 A.L.R.3d (Okla.1969); grievance com agree with
mission’s conclusion conduct (4), (5) 1-102(A)(1), DR violated respondent 6-4; 6-101(A)(3); 2-33; (6); EC DR EC
and 7-101(A)(2) (3); and 9-6 of the EC
DR Responsibility of Professional section 610.24. Lawyers, minority of two-member agree with the respon commission that
the five-member suspended for at license should
dent’s
least six months. practice respondent’s license to
We hold no indefinitely with suspended shall be
law for six months.
possibility reinstatement apply to facets of suspension shall all
This Sup.Ct.R. 118.12. Iowá practice law. reinstatement,
Respondent’s application Supreme to Iowa any,
if shall conform 118.13.
Court Rule SUSPENDED.
LICENSE HARRIS, except
All concur Justices
McCORMICK, JJ., SCHULTZ, who part.
take no
In the Interest of Marvin Louis ROUS child,
SELOW, Appellant.
No. 69570.
Supreme Court Iowa. 21, 1983.
Dec. *2 McFee, Traer, D. appel-
Wilhelmina lant. Miller, Atty. Gen.,
Thomas J.
Gordon E.
Allen,
Gen.,
Sp.
Atty.
Asst.
D. Hege,
Brent
§ 232.-
may not
reinstated.
Gen.,
Lesyshen,
Donna
be
Atty.
Asst.
46(4).
appellee
probation
State of
The result of
successful
County Atty.,
Asst.
decree would be
Iowa.
dismissed without
UHLENHOPP, P.J.,
Considered
delinquency against
child.
McGIVERIN,
HARRIS,
LARSON and
*3
procedural
that
the
facts
We now state
CARTER, JJ.
peti-
presented.
issue
A
gave rise to the
15, 1982,
juvenile
tion was filed on June
McGIVERIN, Justice.
alleging that Marvin Rousselow was
court
juve-
from the
appeals
Marvin Rousselow
had commit-
a
child because he
adjudica-
entry
an order
court’s
nile
second-degree robbery in
ted
violation
disposition
delinquency entered
tion of
(1981).
711.3
Rousselow
Iowa Code section
prior
a
motion. He
the denial of
after
years and
approximately
was
seventeen
to
refused
exercise
that the court
asserts
time, having
at the
been
two months old
his motion to sus-
its discretion
25,
on April
born
1965.
the
of enter-
proceedings for
pend
adjudicatory hearing,
An
in accordance
in accordance
consent decree
with
a
232.47,
held
section
was
with Iowa Code
232.46(1)(1981)and thus
section
Iowa Code
court
At the
juvenile
before a
referee.
an
subsequent entry of
its
the
juvenile orally
the
admitted
agree
delinquency should be vacated.
allegations
petition.
of the
Iowa
therefore,
See
and,
reverse.
§ 232.43(1). The record
that this
reveals
controlling
The
issue
Rousse-
admitting
allegations
not the
plea
the
proper applica
appeal turns
the
low’s
plea
negotiated
agreement
result
be-
of a
provides in
232.46(1)which
tion of section
attorney
county
and the child or
tween the
part:
juve-
his
The referee advised the
counsel.
any
filing
the
At
time after
of a
1.
rights, probed
juvenile’s
nile of
the
his
prior
an order
petition
to
understanding of the offense and the con-
pursuant
to
section
sequences
plea, and
found
of his
thereafter
232.j7,
may
pro-
the court
the
plea
juvenile’s
for the
a factual basis
the
county
the
ceedings on motion of
attor-
concerning
robbery.
detailed admission
counsel, enter
con-
ney or the child’s
a
shows
The record further
that
decree,
the case
sent
and continue
under
procedural safeguards
received all of
established
terms and conditions
232.43(3)-(5). The
set forth in subsections
court....
accepted
plea
juvenile’s
referee then
added.)
(Emphasis
and entered a written
of fact
purposes
A
“consent decree”
1,
on June
commit
“the
did
court
232.46
a
decree
section
Robbery
contrary
Degree
in the Second
...
continued,
whereby
may
the case
to and
in violation
Section 711.3
placed
probation
supervi-
child
Criminal Code.”
required
sion,
being
make
with
child
order,
The
September
referee’s
filed on
performing
to the
or
restitution
victim
14, further stated:
equivalent
assignment of
value for
work
juvenile’s
prior
lack
view
or state.
victim
apparent
criminal involvement and his
county attorney
If
remorsefulness,
at this time
Court
decree,
such
objects to
withholds the
an
232.46(2) shall
court under section
deter-
prejudice
without
to the
appropriateness
of such decree
mine
court
the same
to enter
at
objections
after consideration
there-
ap-
make it
should circumstances
complies
to. If the child
with
terms of
decree,
original petition
propriate.
the consent
ap- probation
provision
The
also
the case for
order
continued
that he continue
eight
proximately
weeks
which time
counseling
psychiatric
at
clinic.
placed
supervi-
under the
Thereafter,
appealed.
ap-
Department of
sion of the
Juvenile Court
plication of
county attorney,
the district
prepare
Services which was instructed
juve-
dismissed the case because the
investigation
social
re-
nile had
age
attained the
of majority on
port.
was also directed
25,
April
1983.
undergo
psychiatric
at a
clinic.
evaluation
I.
Mootness.
dismissal of Rousse-
28,
September
On
court filed
presents
low’s case
question
of whether
adopting
findings
order
the referee’s
appeal
his
is now moot. We have consist-
fact,
judgment
conclusions of law and
ently stated
claim is
if it
moot
“no
its own.
longer presents a justiciable controversy
On
disposi-
November
scheduled
*4
because the issues
are
involved
academic or
hearing
juvenile
tional
was held before the
judgment,
rendered,
nonexistent
if
[and]
§
judge.
Iowa
232.50. At
See
will
practical legal
upon
have no
effect
predisposition
outset of the
existing controversy.” Toomer v. Iowa
investigation report,
social
a letter
Department
Service,
Job
340 N.W.2d
of
psychiatric
from the
clinic that examined
594,
598
juvenile,
received into
were
evidence.
juvenile
The
then moved under section
though
juvenile’s
Even
case
proceedings
232.46 to
dismissed,
has been
we conclude that his
entering
of
a consent
In-
principal
appeal,
allegation
claim on
an
232.46(1),
terpreting section
the court sum-
court refused to exercise its
marily
untimely
denied the motion as
based
discretion in
his motion for a con
on the rationale
“a
consent decree
sent decree
adjudging
and thereafter
him a
adjudication
cannot be entered after an
child,
delinquent
justiciable
remains a
con
place.”
has taken
em-
The court
troversy. The
of
dismissal
Rousselow’s
phasized
“adjudicatory hearing”
that an
merely
formality
case was
recognizing
place
had
though
“adjudica-
taken
even
statutory
the automatic
of
termination
delinquency”
tion of
had
ordered
been
dispositional
court’s
go
order that would
withheld.
unsuccessfully
Rousselow
con-
having
effect
into
due
Rousselow
at
timely
tended that his motion was
age majority.
tained the
of
See Iowa Code
being
section 232.46
it
because was
made
§§ 232.53(1) (2).
juve
have held that
—
prior
adjudication
of
appeal
simply
nile’s
is not mooted
because
delinquency.
age majority.
he or she
reached
has
Following
juvenile’s
the denial of the
mo-
of Matzen,
In the
Interest
N.W.2d
tion,
an
the court first entered
order of
(Iowa 1981). Furthermore,
Rousse-
adjudication
delinquency
pro-
and then
primary
low’s
requested
contention and
ul
disposition
juvenile.
ceeded with the
relief,
vacating
timate
of the order of
guardianship
was trans-
adjudication
delinquency,
remains real
ferred to the
Commissioner
the Iowa
practical legal
and is
entitled
effect be
Department of
for
pur-
Social Services
cause the dismissal
adju
did not erase the
pose
placement
Training
at the State
dication of
from
delinquency
Rousselow’s
However,
School at Eldora.
actual trans-
permanent
record. The
of de
fer was ordered
The juvenile
withheld.
linquency
significant
is also
view the
placed
supervision
then
under the
fact that
it could be introduced into evi
the Black
County
Hawk
Juvenile Court
against him
sentencing proceed
dence
at a
Department
Services
physical place-
remaining
ment
juve-
felony.
in the
after the conviction
home
§
placed
232.55(2).
nile’s mother.
Therefore,
on Code
we conclude
expressly
the referee
with-
tion
is not moot
claim
principal
Rousselow’s
delinquen-
controversy.
adjudication of
held the order of
justiciable
presents a
it
hearing so that
dispositional
cy until
that the
further asserts
investigation
social
predisposition and
dispositional terms
ordering
court erred
relied
prepared and
reports could be
statute,
disposition
by the
unauthorized
par-
Although this
in this determination.
asserts, in
specifically
He
232.52.
expressly provided
approach is not
ticular
regard to the order
alia, error in
ter
statute,
implicitly
authorized.
in the
it
the commis
guardianship to
of his
transfer
being withheld.
transfer
with actual
sioner
232.47(10)
gives the
Section
statutory
there is no
points out that
He
to defer or withhold
the discretion
court
and thus the
procedure
provision for that
should be vacated.
court’s
has
making
after
is moot because
that this claim
conclude
conduct. Section
engaged
of the order
improper portion
alleged
232.48(2)
preparation of a
permits
then
guardianship
his
transfer of
providing for
adjudica
report prior to
be,
effective,
it
due
nor will
became
never
adjudica
delinquency, and after an
tion of
the district
to the dismissal
provided
and his
tory hearing,
appeal.
disposition of
and our
granted consent. Fi
parents have
or her
de-
motion
II. Denial
prohibit
not
nally, section
does
claim is
foundational
cree. Rousselow’s
entry of an order
*5
to exercise
court refused
hearing.
dispositional
the
Our
course of
declining,
the basis of
in
on
its discretion
preclude us from
prior decisions do not
untimeliness,
motion for a
consider his
to
adjudi
of an order of
permitting the
decree.
consent
of the
delinquency at the outset
cation of
provisions
hearing,
of section
that an ad
dispositional
provided
The relevant
de
232.46(1),
provides for a consent
during
which
hearing has been held
judicatory
ref
cree,
The statute’s
were stated above.
finding
the
court made a
that
which the
pursu
adjudication
erence to “an order of
engaged
delinquent
in
con
juvenile had
to section
ant
to
232.47” refers
section
C.D.P., 315
In the Interest
duct. See
that,
“If the court
states
which
(1982);
In the Interest
N.W.2d
in
engage
delin
finds that
the child did
(1975).
Meek,
terpretation, however, would rewrite sec- dispositional hearing I A dissent. is in- 232.46(1). tion held following tended of an adjudication. Iowa Code section ju record reveals result, dispositional 232.50 As a preceded entry venile’s motion beyond point proceed- court’s order of ings when a consent decree should be con- dispositional hearing. at the In accordance sidered. permits with section which *6 to enter any a consent decree at time court, withholding formal “prior adjudication,” anof adjudication, is entitled the motion timely the court did grounds to condition that action on such authority have the a consent de enter proper. the court deems direct- cree at the time the motion was made. withholding of adjudi- the order of hearing discretion,
After subject to its present expressly cation the motion for a consent decree could be advancing proceeding conditioned ruled point its merits. At that directly dispositional hearing to the cir-—a proceeding, would need to any preclude cumstance which should en- preponderance show of the evidence titlement to a I would good sustaining cause existed for affirm the court. Matzen, motion. the Interest of N.W.2d at 481-82. however, interpretation,
The courts “consent decree
cannot adjudicatory be entered after an place,” has taken was erroneous.
Therefore, we conclude court erred in
failing by denying to exercise its discretion
the motion on the basis untimeliness. prejudicial
The error was to Rousselow be-
cause the order of of delin-
quency error, occurred after the thereby