B. A. M. v. State
This text of 528 P.2d 437 (B. A. M. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alaska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION
At his disposition hearing before the superior court on October 19, 1973,1 B.A.M. was found to be a delinquent child. The hearing judge ordered B.A.M. committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Health and Social Services to be incarcerated in an adult penal institution for one year and then placed on probation until his twentieth birthday.
We conclude that the hearing judge erred in ordering B.A.M. incarcerated in an adult penal institution for one year. Since B.A.M. was under the age of eighteen at the time the acts of delinquency were committed, he is considered a minor for the purposes of adjudication and disposition. P. H. v. State, 504 P.2d 837 (Alaska 1972). In a juvenile proceeding under AS 47.10.080(b)(1)2 the court may commit the minor to the Department of Health and Social Services for an indeterminate period not to extend past a specified date but in no event past the day the minor becomes nineteen. At the time B. A.M. was sentenced the court had statutory authority to direct the minor’s placement in a juvenile facility designated by the department.3 B.A.M., however, was sentenced for a fixed time period and ordered to an adult institution. This amounted to a penal sentence as opposed to the juvenile disposition required under AS 47.10.-080(b)(1).4
[439]*439 The court’s authority to impose a penal sentence on a juvenile is limited under the strict procedures of AS 47.10.-060(a) and (d) 5 and Children’s Rule 3. Before treating a juvenile as an adult, the court must first conduct a waiver hearing. The court may then close out the case as a juvenile matter only upon finding cause to believe that the minor is delinquent and that the minor is not amenable to treatment. The minor may then be prosecuted as an adult.6 Since no waiver hearing had been conducted in this case, the court had no authority to sentence B.A.M. as an adult.
The recent case of Davenport v. McGinnis, 522 P.2d 1140 (Alaska 1974), must be distinguished from the instant case. In that case we were concerned with the department’s placement under AS 47.10.190 7 of a juvenile delinquent who was over eighteen years of age at the time of placement in the federal facility for young offenders at Lompoc, California. A majority of the court held that the department was not limited in the selection of a suitable facility for those over eighteen years of age by the requirement of incarceration separate from adult offenders. Davenport did not involve the imposition of an adult sentence by the superior court.
We also conclude that the hearing judge erred by placing B.A.M. on probation until his twentieth birthday. AS 47.-10.080(b)(2)8 by its express terms limits probation to an indefinite period of time, not to extend past a specified date and in no event past the day the minor becomes' nineteen. The department may petition the court for an additional one year of continued supervision past the nineteenth birthday for minors who have not responded to treatment. The department offered no petition in this case, and it would have been inappropriate for the department to have filed such a petition without first determining that B.A.M. was not responding to treatment. The superior court was thus without authority to extend probation beyond B.A.M.’s nineteenth birthday without a petition from the department to extend [440]*440the probationary period for an additional year.
We remand with instructions to the superior court to enter a disposition order in conformity with this decision.9
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
528 P.2d 437, 1974 Alas. LEXIS 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/b-a-m-v-state-alaska-1974.