Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. C.D.T.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

September 23, 2013

State of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
C.D.T., Appellant

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Ramsey County District Court File Nos. 62-JV-10-479, 62-CR-12-9265

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Peter R. Marker, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Susan J. Andrews, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Smith, Judge.

RODENBERG, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court's order revoking his extended jurisdiction juvenile (EJJ) status and placing him on adult probation. We affirm.

FACTS

On February 9, 2010, appellant C.D.T. was charged with first-degree assault by delinquency petition in Ramsey County juvenile court. The state moved to certify him for adult prosecution under Minn. Stat. § 260B.125 (2008). By agreement, the state withdrew its certification motion, and appellant admitted the allegations of the petition and agreed to be designated as an EJJ.[1] By disposition order dated April 29, 2010, the district court adjudicated appellant delinquent, imposed an adult sentence of 117 months imprisonment, stayed the execution of that sentence, designated him as an EJJ until his 21st birthday, and placed him on probation. Appellant's probation included conditions that appellant remain law-abiding and refrain from possessing and using drugs and alcohol. Appellant was also required to complete a 12- to 18-month program at Glen Mills School, which he completed in the fall of 2011.

On January 20, 2012, the district court received a probation violation report, alleging that appellant had failed to inform his probation officer about a speeding violation, a citation for possession of a small amount of marijuana, and a citation for underage consumption of alcohol. Appellant appeared in juvenile court and admitted the probation violations. The district court continued appellant's probation as an EJJ with the additional condition that appellant undergo a chemical dependency evaluation and follow the recommendations.

On July 24, 2012, a probation violation report was filed in juvenile court, alleging that appellant had assaulted his girlfriend in her home in Minneapolis and that he had fled after giving police a false name. Although appellant was later arrested, the state withdrew the probation violation claim before any hearing.

On November 7, 2012, a probation violation report was filed, alleging that appellant had been cited for possession of a small amount of marijuana. On November 16, another probation violation report was filed, alleging that appellant had again possessed marijuana, had failed to complete chemical dependency treatment, and had failed to notify probation about a shoplifting incident.

On November 19, 2012, appellant appeared before the district court and admitted the alleged probation violations. By agreement, appellant consented to revocation of his EJJ status and the state agreed to refrain from requesting execution of appellant's adult sentence. Determining that appellant's admitted probation violations were "knowing and intentional and without legal justification or excuse, " the district court revoked appellant's EJJ status. The district court continued to stay execution of appellant's adult sentence of 117 months and placed him on adult probation on designated conditions, including that he serve six months in the Ramsey County Community Correctional Facility. But the district court failed to address the length of the adult probation. Within one hour, the parties returned to open court to discuss the district court's failure to pronounce the length of appellant's term of adult probation. The state proposed a 20-year probation term, while appellant's attorney argued that appellant "would like for it to be less than 20 years' probation."

The court imposed a term of probation of up to 20 years, the statutory maximum. Appellant did not move the district court to withdraw his admission to having ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.