In the Interest of: JANE DOE (2017-35), A Juvenile Under Eighteen (18) Years of Age.
JANE DOE (2017-35), Respondent-Appellant. STATE OF IDAHO, Petitioner-Respondent,
from the District Court of the First Judicial District of the
State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Jay P. Gaskill,
decision of the district court is affirmed.
Taylor, Kootenai County Public Defender, Coeur d'Alene,
for appellant. Kristen A. Pearson argued.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for
respondent. Jeffery D. Nye argued.
NATURE OFTHE CASE
case addresses whether a juvenile court has jurisdiction to
reduce a juvenile's sentence once the juvenile is
committed to state custody and the time for appeal has run.
Relying on Idaho Criminal Rule 47, the rule which governs the
filing of motions generally in criminal cases, Jane Doe filed
a motion to modify disposition requesting that the juvenile
court place her back on probation after sentence had been
imposed and modify its previous computation of credit for
time served. The juvenile court held that Doe's motion
was actually a motion to reduce sentence under Idaho Criminal
Rule 35 (a rule which has not been incorporated into the
Idaho Juvenile Rules) and concluded that it did not have
jurisdiction to consider Doe's motion.
appealed the juvenile court's decision to the district
court. The district court affirmed the decision, holding that
Rule 47 did not grant jurisdiction to reduce the sentence,
but that jurisdiction existed under Idaho Code sections
20-505 and 20-507. The district court held that whether the
sentence should be modified is a discretionary call and that
the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in declining
to place Doe back on probation or incorrectly calculate
Doe's credit for time served. We agree with the district
court's decision to affirm the magistrate court's
denial of Doe's motion to modify disposition, but write
today to explain that there is no jurisdiction for the
juvenile court to modify the juvenile's sentence once it
has been imposed and the time for appeal has run.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Doe voluntarily admitted to two counts of grand theft in
juvenile court and an order for informal adjustment through
diversion was entered. A little over a year later, the
juvenile court found that Doe violated the terms of her
informal adjustment and sentenced her to three hundred sixty
days of detention with three hundred twenty nine days
suspended. Doe was given one day credit for time previously
served and ordered to serve thirty days to be scheduled at a
later date. The informal adjustment was not revoked, but Doe
was ordered to two years of probation and required to
complete family support court.
ten months later, the State filed a motion to revoke
Doe's probation because she had been running away,
skipping school, and not taking her medications as
prescribed. Doe was detained on a warrant for about twenty
days, when she received a conditional release. Doe admitted
to two probation violations and disposition was scheduled for
a later date.
six weeks later, the State filed a motion to revoke Doe's
conditional release because she had been leaving school
without permission and violating school attendance policies.
Doe's conditional release was revoked and she was
detained again. On the day she was released from detention,
Doe appeared for disposition on the probation violations and
was allowed to keep her informal adjustment. Shortly
thereafter, Doe was ordered to serve two days in detention
for violating the terms of her GPS monitoring device and
having contact with people who were not on her approved
State filed a second motion to revoke Doe's probation
because Doe had been lying to her mother, having contact with
a 25-year-old man who was not on her approved list of
contacts, and continued absences from school. The court
terminated Doe's probation. Three hundred sixty days of
detention were imposed; Doe was given credit for one hundred
twenty nine days served previously; and Doe was ordered to
serve the remaining two hundred thirty one days immediately.
Doe was granted a furlough to seek out-of-state medical
treatment, but the juvenile court made it clear that no
credit for time served would be granted while she was
three years after the juvenile court entered the original
informal adjustment through diversion, Doe filed a motion to
modify disposition requesting leniency and to correct her
sentence regarding credit for time served. Specifically, Doe
requested that the juvenile court give her two days of credit
for every day she spent in detention and place her back on
probation. The juvenile court found that it did not have
jurisdiction to consider Doe's motion. Despite Doe's
claims that she had filed her motion with the court under
Idaho Juvenile Rule 21 and Idaho Criminal Rule 47, the
juvenile court found that Doe's motion was actually
brought under Idaho Criminal Rule 35, which is not applicable
to juveniles sentenced under the Juvenile Corrections Act.
The court went on to state that even if jurisdiction existed
it would have denied Doe's motion on the merits.
appealed the juvenile court's decision to the district
court. The district court agreed that jurisdiction did not
exist under Idaho Juvenile Rule 21 and Idaho Criminal Rule
47, but found that jurisdiction existed under Idaho Code
sections 20-505 and 20-507; as such, the juvenile court could
have modified Doe's sentence. Nonetheless, the district
court affirmed the juvenile court on the merits holding that
the court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to
place Doe back on probation and there was no basis in the
Juvenile Corrections Act which supported Doe's argument
that her credit for time served should have been doubled in
this case, where she actually served one hundred twenty nine
days in detention. Doe timely appealed to this Court. Doe
finished serving her sentence while this appeal was pending.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Whether Doe's appeal is moot because she finished serving
her sentence ...