Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re A.D.T.

Supreme Court of Kansas

June 2, 2017

In the Matter of A.D.T.

         SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

         1. In an extended juvenile jurisdiction proceeding, the district court imposes one or more juvenile sentences listed in K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 38-2361(a) and an adult criminal sentence.

         2. The adult sentence in an extended juvenile jurisdiction proceeding shall be stayed on the condition that the juvenile offender not violate the provisions of the juvenile sentence and not commit a new offense.

         3. In an extended juvenile jurisdiction proceeding, a juvenile violates the provisions of his or her juvenile sentence by violating the terms of conditional release. The consequences of a juvenile violating the provisions of his or her conditional release in an extended juvenile jurisdiction proceeding are set forth in K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 38-2364(b).

         4. Under K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 38-2364(b), a district court has the authority to revoke the stay of the adult sentence in an extended juvenile jurisdiction proceeding, without prior notice to the juvenile or the juvenile's attorney of record, when it appears that the juvenile has violated the conditions of his or her conditional release. If the juvenile challenges the reasons for revocation, a hearing is required on whether a preponderance of the evidence establishes the violation.

         5. If a district court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a juvenile on conditional release in an extended juvenile jurisdiction proceeding has violated the conditions of release, K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 38-2364(b) requires the termination of juvenile court jurisdiction and the mandatory execution of the adult sentence, unless the State and the defense agree to modify that sentence.

         6. An appellate court cannot invalidate a statute, otherwise constitutional, just because the members of the court might consider the provisions of the law to be unwise, unfair, and/or unjust.

         Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; Delia M. York, judge. Opinion filed June 2, 2017. Affirmed.

          Debera A. Erickson, of Kansas City, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.

          Mollie R. Hill, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Jerome A. Gorman, district attorney, was with her on the brief for appellee.

          OPINION

          Johnson, J.

         In an extended juvenile jurisdiction prosecution (EJJP), the juvenile, A.D.T., pled guilty to first-degree premediated murder. He completed the incarceration portion of his juvenile sentence and was placed on conditional release. After A.D.T. admitted to violating his conditional release by twice testing positive for drugs, the district court revoked A.D.T.'s juvenile sentence and imposed his adult sentence of life imprisonment. On direct appeal to this court, A.D.T. argues that it was manifestly unjust for the district court to impose his adult sentence for the positive urinalysis (UA) tests because he did not receive the recommended substance abuse treatment while in the juvenile correctional facility and because he did not receive proper notice as to what conduct would cause the court to invoke his adult sentence. Addressing only the issues raised in this direct appeal, we affirm the district court.

         Factual and Procedural Overview

         In April 2008, the State commenced a proceeding under the Revised Kansas Juvenile Justice Code, K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 38-2301 et seq., charging 13-year-old A.D.T. with first-degree premediated murder and criminal possession of a firearm. District Judge Wesley K. Griffin designated the proceedings as an EJJP under K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 38-2347(f)(2).

         In November 2009, A.D.T. pleaded guilty to first-degree premediated murder. The district court sentenced A.D.T., as a violent I juvenile offender under K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 38-2369(a)(1)(A), to the juvenile correctional facility until age 22 1/2 years old and a term of aftercare until his 23rd birthday. The court also ordered that A.D.T. undergo a substance abuse evaluation and follow any recommendations. For A.D.T.'s adult sentence, which would be statutorily stayed conditioned upon successful completion of the juvenile sentence, the court ordered a life sentence without the possibility of parole for 25 years.

         A.D.T. arrived at the Kansas Juvenile Correctional Complex (KJCC) in December 2009. Because of time already served, A.D.T. was scheduled to be released in July 2013.

         KJCC staff completed a program plan and progress report addressing A.D.T.'s substance abuse assessment during his incarceration. A.D.T.'s test results on the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) indicated a "low probability" for substance abuse or dependence disorder. But because A.D.T. self-reported past drug use and admitted to using drugs during the commission of his crime, the report recommended that A.D.T. be referred to the Pathways substance abuse program. A.D.T. remained on the waiting list for Pathways throughout his juvenile incarceration. The final update in the report clarified, "Due to time constraints, lack of counselors/programming, youth education credits interfering with programming time, and [A.D.T.'s] low [Youth Level of Service (YLS)] scores[, ] [A.D.T.] will not complete substance abuse treatment at KJCC before his July 19, 2013[, ] release date." The report recommended that A.D.T. attend community support systems such as Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) upon his release and submit to random UA tests. In addition, if A.D.T. was found to be using substances on release, he was to be assessed for substance abuse and follow any outpatient treatment recommendations.

         Upon A.D.T.'s release in July 2013, the district court found that A.D.T. had been reintegrated and could be returned home. The permanency plan order noted that the district court's previous orders "shall continue in full force and effect."

         That same month, A.D.T. entered into a contract explaining the conditions of his release while under community corrections supervision and the sanctions for any violation. The conditional release contract required A.D.T., inter alia, to "refrain from the purchase, possession or consumption of drugs." The contract clarified that if A.D.T. violated the conditions, he could be subjected to internal sanctions or he could be returned to the district court. If A.D.T. was returned to the district court, the contract provided that the district court may (1) impose 2 days in a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.