Opinion
No. 2020-CK-01414
12-22-2020
STATE of Louisiana IN the INTEREST OF M.B.
PER CURIAM:
Writ granted. On December 4, 2020, 14-year-old M.B. was arrested on several charges and detained at the Juvenile Justice Intervention Center in Orleans Parish. On December 8, 2020, M.B. filed a Motion for Immediate Release on the grounds that the juvenile court had failed to hold a continued custody hearing within three days of his detention, as required by La.Ch.C. art. 819 et seq. That same day, the juvenile court scheduled a hearing via Zoom, at which the court denied the Motion for Immediate Release, citing pandemic-related scheduling difficulties and a heavy caseload as reasons for failing to hold a hearing within the statutorily mandated time. The court of appeal denied writs without comment. State v. M.B. , 20-0634 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/10/20) (unpub'd).
When a child is taken into custody, the juvenile court must set and hold an adversarial continued custody hearing within three days. La.Ch.C. art. 819. At the hearing, the state must prove there is probable cause that the juvenile has committed a delinquent act. La.C.Ch. art. 820. If the court fails to hold the continued custody hearing within three days of the child's detention, or if the state fails to meet its burden at the hearing, the child must be released. La.Ch.C. art. 821.
Here, the juvenile court failed to hold a continued custody hearing within three days of M.B.’s entry into a juvenile detention facility. As such, La.Ch.C. art. 819 mandates that he be released. Accordingly, the juvenile court's ruling denying M.B.’s Motion for Immediate Release is vacated. M.B. is ordered released. We remand to the juvenile court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED
Hughes, J., dissents.
Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons:
I dissent from the majority's reversal of the district court's ruling on the motion for release in this matter. Despite the language of Ch. C. art. 819, I believe we must consider the extraordinary circumstances present in this case, namely: (1) the numerous administrative challenges with which the district court is burdened due to the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) that the Ch. C. art. 819 hearing was held the same day the motion for release was filed; (3) the brevity of the delay (less than 24 hours); and (4) the gravity of the four crimes of violence with which this juvenile is charged. In light of these circumstances, the injury suffered by the juvenile in this matter, if any, is substantially outweighed by the serious public safety concerns presented by release from custody and sufficiently justified by the district court's reasons for the delay. Accordingly, I would affirm the ruling of the lower courts.