This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of the Welfare of: V. S. V.
Filed June 28, 2005
Reversed and remanded
Gordon W. Shumaker, Judge
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 234244
Osborne, Post Office
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and,
Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Michael K. Walz, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge; Shumaker, Judge; and Poritsky, Judge.*
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
GORDON W. SHUMAKER, Judge
Appellant challenges the juvenile court’s order designating him an extended-jurisdiction juvenile, arguing, among other things, that the designation should be vacated because the hearing on the matter was not timely held. Because the juvenile court violated the statutory deadlines for the designation hearing, we reverse and remand without prejudice.
On August 11, 2003, 17-year-old appellant V.S.V arranged
to meet undercover police officers to buy some marijuana from them. The officers told V.S.V. that they would be
in a white
On April 1, 2004, the state filed a petition, alleging V.S.V. to be delinquent on one count each of fifth-degree controlled-substance crime (possession) and fifth-degree controlled-substance crime (sale). On May 3, 2004, the state filed a motion for an extended-jurisdiction juvenile (EJJ) designation. The juvenile court made a determination of probable cause and ordered EJJ studies from probation and psychological services.
The designation hearing was initially scheduled for June 14, 2004, but was continued until August 6, 2004, apparently because V.S.V.’s attorney was late for the June 14 appearance. The hearing eventually took place on August 6, August 26, and September 14, 2004. On September 20, 2004, the juvenile court designated V.S.V. an extended-jurisdiction juvenile. Four days later, V.S.V. turned 19.
D E C I S I O N
A juvenile court may
designate a proceeding an EJJ prosecution if “(1) an adult is alleged to have
committed an offense before the adult’s 18th birthday; and (2) a petition is
filed . . . [within the statute of limitations] and before
the adult’s 21st birthday.”
V.S.V. cites In re Welfare of C.L.S. for the
proposition that “the statutory time limit in [Minn. Stat. § 260B.130,
subd. 2] is stated in mandatory terms” and “must be adhered to by the trial
court.” 558 N.W.2d 12, 13-14 (Minn. App.
1997), overruled on other grounds by In re Welfare of D.M.D.,
607 N.W.2d 432, 437 (
In C.L.S., the juvenile committed a felony
in August 1994, when he was 17 years old.
In C.L.S., we stated that the statutory deadlines with respect to a designation hearing are “absolute.” 558 N.W.2d at 14. But we also noted that, at the time of his appeal, the juvenile had not yet turned 21 and held that
[i]f a new petition is filed in this case before appellant reaches age 21, the juvenile court has continuing jurisdiction in the absence of a showing that delay has been purposefully caused to gain unfair advantage. Because jurisdiction of the juvenile court for an EJJ certification in this case has not yet expired under current statutory law and the legislature has seen fit to state a mandatory time rule but to withhold statement of a sanction for untimely proceedings, we reverse and vacate the trial court's EJJ designation without prejudice.
The facts of this case are substantially similar to those in C.L.S. V.S.V. allegedly committed a felony in August 2003, when he was 17 years old. The state filed a delinquency petition on April 1, 2004, and an EJJ motion on May 3, 2004. The hearing was originally scheduled for June 14, 2004, more than 30 days after the filing of the county’s motion. Apparently, V.S.V.’s attorney was late for the June 14 appearance, and the juvenile court continued the hearing until August 6, 2004, more than 90 days after the filing of the state’s motion.
The juvenile court failed to comply with both the 30-day and 90-day mandatory time rules under Minn. Stat. § 260B.130, subd. 2. And as of the filing of this decision, V.S.V. is 19 years old. Therefore, as in C.L.S., “because jurisdiction of the juvenile court for an EJJ certification . . . has not yet expired,” we reverse and remand the juvenile court's EJJ designation without prejudice to the filing of a new petition. C.L.S., 558 N.W.2d at 14.
V.S.V. also argues that the state intentionally delayed the proceedings to gain an unfair advantage and that the evidence does not support the juvenile court’s EJJ designation. But because we reverse and remand without prejudice to the filing of a new petition, these issues are no longer relevant to our review.
Reversed and remanded.
* Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.