Summary
The Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed whether a juvenile complied with the educational and vocational conditions of a plea agreement requiring good-faith participation in available programs. The court held that the juvenile failed to make a good-faith effort to obtain vocational training, reversed the lower courts, and ordered his placement in the Culinary Arts Program upon the next opening.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by finding that E.C. complied with the vocational-effort provision of his plea agreement.
- Whether the lack of an immediate opening in the Culinary Arts Program rendered the vocational condition unavailable or excused E.C. from making good-faith efforts to participate.
Holdings
- The juvenile court abused its discretion in finding that E.C. complied with the plea agreement because he made no good-faith effort to obtain a vocational skill.
- A waiting period for entry into the Culinary Arts Program did not make the program unavailable and did not excuse E.C. from actively pursuing participation.
Key quotations
“The juvenile court abused its discretion in holding that the defendant complied with the terms of his plea agreement where no good faith effort was made on the part of the defendant to obtain a vocational skill.” (at 788)
“The fact that defendant would have to wait to enter the program does not in any way support the contention that defendant had no realistic opportunity to participate and furthermore does not render the program unavailable to defendant.” (at 789)
“WRIT GRANTED; REVERSED AND RENDERED.” (at 789)
Factual background
E.C., a juvenile charged with second-degree murder and armed robbery, entered a nolo contendere plea under an agreement requiring him to obtain a GED or make good-faith educational efforts and to obtain a trade or skill through a vocational program or make good-faith efforts to participate. The Bridge City Center offered a Culinary Arts Program, and testimony established that a court could order E.C. into the program, but the record did not show that he placed his name on the waiting list or otherwise followed up to enter it. The juvenile court nevertheless found substantial compliance based largely on E.C.'s participation in tutoring and the lack of an earlier opening, set aside the adjudication, and released him.
Procedural history
E.C. pleaded nolo contendere to second-degree murder and armed robbery under a plea agreement requiring educational and vocational efforts. The juvenile court initially deferred a compliance determination, later found that E.C. had complied with the substantive terms of the agreement, set aside the adjudication, released him, and placed him on electronic monitoring. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, and the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the State's writ application, reversed, and ordered E.C. returned to the juvenile facility to comply with the vocational-program provision.
Remand instructions
E.C. was ordered remanded to the Bridge City Center facility and placed in the Culinary Arts Program upon the next opening, in compliance with paragraph 3 of the plea agreement.