This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A child was adjudicated as delinquent after pleading no contest to a battery charge. He was placed on probation for two years but violated its terms multiple times, leading to petitions for probation revocation. The child was detained after the second violation and remained in custody until a dispositional hearing was held 28 days after the adjudicatory hearing, exceeding the 20-day time limit mandated by court rules for detained children (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- Children's Court, June 3, 1993: The child was placed on probation for two years after being adjudicated delinquent (para 2).
- Children's Court, January 4, 1994: The court adopted the findings of a special master, determining the child violated probation and was delinquent, and ordered a predisposition report (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Child): Argued that the dispositional hearing was untimely under SCRA 1986, 10-229(B), as it was held 28 days after the adjudicatory hearing, exceeding the 20-day limit. The child contended this delay required dismissal of the petition with prejudice (paras 5, 10).
- Respondent (State): Asserted that the 20-day time limit was not triggered until the children's court judge acted on the special master's report, as the special master lacked authority to conclude the adjudicatory process. The State also argued that exceptions to the report could delay the timeline (para 7).
Legal Issues
- Was the dispositional hearing untimely under SCRA 1986, 10-229(B), and should the petition against the child be dismissed with prejudice?
Disposition
- The judgment and disposition of the children's court were reversed, and the petition against the child was ordered to be dismissed with prejudice (para 12).
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Hartz and Flores JJ. concurring):
The court held that the 20-day time limit for holding a dispositional hearing under SCRA 1986, 10-229(B), begins at the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing, which occurred on December 23, 1993. The State's argument that the timeline starts only after the children's court judge acts on the special master's report was rejected, as it contradicted the plain language of the rule and other procedural rules (paras 6-8).
The court emphasized that the rule's purpose is to ensure prompt resolution for detained children, and the 28-day delay violated this mandate. The State did not argue that the child agreed to or caused the delay or that the child was not prejudiced, so dismissal with prejudice was required under the rule (paras 9-10).
The court also found no conflict between the rule and statutory provisions allowing continuances for predisposition reports, as the rule specifically limits discretion in cases involving detained children (para 11).