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 juvenile probationer was charged with possessing drug paraphernalia and causing criminal damage to property. After admitting to one charge and being found guilty of the other, the child was placed on probation with conditions, including attending school without unexcused absences. The child was later expelled from school, allegedly violating probation terms, leading to a revocation hearing (paras 4-6).
Procedural History
- District Court, July 1998: The child was placed on two years' probation and ordered to pay restitution for property damage after admitting to one charge and being found guilty of another (para 5). n[Not applicable or not found] for any other prior decisions.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Child): Argued that the trial court violated his due process rights by failing to follow mandatory procedures under the Children's Code during the probation revocation hearing. Additionally, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to these procedural failures. Requested reassignment to a different judge on remand due to alleged bias (paras 1, 3, 12-13, 28).
- Respondent (State): Contended that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction as the child failed to preserve the issues at the trial level. On the merits, argued that the child was not entitled to the same procedural protections at a revocation hearing as in a delinquency proceeding and that any procedural errors were non-prejudicial (paras 2, 16-25).
Legal Issues
- Did the trial court violate the child's due process rights by failing to follow mandatory procedures under the Children's Code during the probation revocation hearing?
- Was the child's admission to the probation violation knowing, intelligent, and voluntary?
- Should the case be reassigned to a different judge on remand due to alleged bias?
Disposition
- The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new probation revocation hearing before the same judge (paras 3, 29).
Reasons
Per Pickard CJ (Bosson and Sutin JJ. concurring):
The court found that the trial court violated the child's due process rights by failing to follow mandatory procedures under the Children's Code. Specifically, the trial court did not personally address the child to ensure that his admission to the probation violation was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, as required by Rule 10-224(C) and related provisions (paras 13-16). The court emphasized that these procedural safeguards are constitutionally mandated and apply to probation revocation hearings under the Children's Code (paras 14-15, 23-24).
The appellate court rejected the State's argument that the child was not prejudiced by the procedural errors, holding that the failure to follow mandatory procedures constituted fundamental error. The court also expressed concerns about the validity of the child's admission, given that his attorney knew the allegations in the petition were not entirely accurate and that the probation officer had recommended a more lenient disposition (paras 25-26).
Regarding the request for reassignment to a different judge, the court found no evidence of bias or prejudice. The judge's prior warning about potential commitment to the Boys' School did not demonstrate predisposition against the child. Therefore, the case was remanded to the same judge for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion (para 28).