Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court considered whether 33 V.S.A. § 5291(b), which requires adjudication of a delinquency petition within forty-five days after a preliminary hearing when a juvenile is placed in a secure facility, applied to a petition lacking its own secure-placement order. The court held that the statutory timeline applies only to the particular petition connected to the secure-facility placement order. Because the juvenile was placed at Woodside under a separate delinquency petition, the court affirmed the adjudication for assault and robbery.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the forty-five-day merits-hearing and adjudication deadline in 33 V.S.A. § 5291(b) applies to a delinquency petition when the juvenile is held in a secure facility under a separate delinquency petition but no secure-facility placement order was issued in the petition on appeal.
- Whether failure to comply with § 5291(b) required dismissal with prejudice of the assault-and-robbery delinquency petition and vacation of the secure-facility placement order.
Holdings
- The forty-five-day deadline in 33 V.S.A. § 5291(b) applies only to the particular delinquency petition in which the court issued the secure-facility placement order; it does not apply merely because the juvenile is housed in a secure facility under a separate delinquency petition.
- Although § 5291(b)'s deadline is mandatory and ordinarily carries dismissal with prejudice for noncompliance, the dismissal remedy is unavailable where the statute's triggering conditions are not met.
Key quotations
“Because we conclude that the statutory timeline set forth in 33 V.S.A. § 5291(b) does not apply in such situations, we reject juvenile’s call for dismissal of the petition on appeal and vacation of the secure-facility placement order that had been issued under a different petition.” (¶ 1)
“Although § 5291(b) is mandatory, the plain meaning of its language indicates that it applies only to the particular delinquency petition before the court.” (¶ 13)
“Because A.A. was not placed at Woodside in connection with the docket before us, the timeline in § 5291(b) does not apply, and therefore there is no basis to grant the dismissal remedy A.A. seeks.” (¶ 16)
Factual background
A.A. had previously been adjudicated delinquent and placed at Woodside, a secure treatment facility. While that earlier matter was pending, he was charged with assault and robbery and later had that case transferred to the family division as a delinquency petition. The family division adjudicated him delinquent on the assault-and-robbery petition after a merits hearing, although no secure-facility placement order had been issued in that particular docket because A.A. was already placed at Woodside under a separate larceny petition.
Procedural history
A.A. was already placed at Woodside pursuant to a separate larceny delinquency case. The assault-and-robbery matter was transferred from the criminal division to the family division as a delinquency petition, but the family division did not issue a secure-facility placement order in that docket because A.A. was already at Woodside under the separate petition. After merits hearings, the family division adjudicated A.A. delinquent, and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed.