Opinion
No. C5-96-1109.
Filed December 17, 1996.
Appeal from the District Court, Wright County, File Nos. J19550358, J39550927, J69550789.
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Charlann Winking, Assistant State Public Defender, (for appellant T.J.B.)
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, (for respondent State of Minnesota)
Wyman A. Nelson, Wright County Attorney, Anne L. Mohaupt, Assistant County Attorney, (for respondent State of Minnesota)
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
After participating in a two-month crime spree, T.J.B. was adjudicated delinquent in Stearns County and Wright County for the offenses of reckless driving, possession of marijuana, criminal damage to property, and felony theft. On the basis of the adjudications, the Wright County juvenile court ordered T.J.B. to: (1) attend a chemical dependency treatment program; (2) pay a fine; (3) remain on probation until he reaches the age of 19; (4) comply with the terms of his previous probation; (5) pay restitution; and (6) complete 100 hours of community service.
Six months later, not having complied with the terms of his probation, T.J.B. appeared before the Wright County juvenile court for a probation violation hearing. At the time, T.J.B. was just days from turning 19, when the juvenile court would be required to relinquish jurisdiction over him pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 260.181, subd. 4(a) (1996). Finding there was inadequate time to reinstate T.J.B. on probation before his birthday, the court committed T.J.B. to five days in the Wright County jail, an adult correctional facility. T.J.B. appeals from the dispositional order, arguing the Wright County juvenile court erred in ordering him to serve time in an adult jail because Minn. Stat. § 260.185 (1996), the statute governing dispositional options for juvenile offenders, does not provide for such a disposition. The juvenile court stayed imposition of the jail sentence pending appellate review. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
DECISION
Appellate courts hear only "live controversies" and must dismiss cases as moot if an award of effective relief is impossible. In re Inspection of Minn. Auto Specialties, 346 N.W.2d 657, 658 (Minn. 1984). In the interim between the probation violation hearing and this appeal, T.J.B. turned age 19, bypassing the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and rendering all dispositional orders issued by the juvenile court unenforceable. See Minn. Stat. § 260.181, subd. 4(a) (1996) (providing jurisdiction of juvenile court may continue only until juvenile reaches 19 years of age). Thus, any award of relief this court might grant would necessarily be without purpose or force.
Both T.J.B. and Wright County admit this case is moot as to T.J.B., but argue the issue is capable of repetition while evading review, so we should address the merits of T.J.B.'s case. See State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin, 505 N.W.2d 294, 297 (Minn. 1993) (hearing moot issue on appeal on above grounds). We disagree. T.J.B. never suffered tangible harm because he did not actually serve time in the correctional facility. The parties also acknowledge the juvenile court has no current power to enforce the jail sentences. More importantly, the legislature is a more appropriate forum for resolution of this matter because the language of the dispositional guidelines is at issue. Under these circumstances, we conclude the issue raised on appeal is moot.
Appeal dismissed.