Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-11902 No. 6176
04-29-2015
A.I., a minor, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Appearances: Sharon B. Barr, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Sara E. Simpson, Assistant District Attorney, Fairbanks, and Michael C. Geraghty, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this Court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding authority for any proposition of law. Trial Court No. 4FA-11-25 DL
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appeal from the Superior Court, Fourth Judicial District, Fairbanks, Michael P. McConahy, Judge. Appearances: Sharon B. Barr, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Sara E. Simpson, Assistant District Attorney, Fairbanks, and Michael C. Geraghty, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee. Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, Judge, and Hanley, District Court Judge. Judge HANLEY.
Sitting by assignment made pursuant to Article IV, Section 16 of the Alaska Constitution and Administrative Rule 24(d).
After multiple probation violations, Superior Court Judge Michael P. McConahy ordered A.I., a delinquent minor, to be institutionalized under AS 47.12.120(b)(1). A.I. appeals, arguing that institutionalization was not the least restrictive disposition of his case. Because A.I. has a long history of unsuccessful less restrictive placements and has a continuing need for treatment, we affirm the superior court's order.
See AS 47.12.140(2); Alaska Delinquency Rule 11(e).
Background
In 2010, when A.I. was fourteen years old, he was placed on informal probation for first-degree burglary, third-degree theft, and fifth-degree criminal mischief.
In 2011, when A.I. was fifteen, he was charged with a felony for possessing marijuana on school grounds on two occasions and with misdemeanor shoplifting. A.I. admitted the two counts of possessing marijuana on school grounds, and the shoplifting charge was dismissed. Based on A.I.'s admission, the superior court adjudicated A.I. a delinquent minor, placed him on probation for six months, and ordered him to complete a substance abuse counseling program.
Less than a month later, the State filed a petition to revoke A.I.'s probation, alleging that A.I. had violated the conditions of his probation by using marijuana, drinking alcohol, and violating his curfew. A.I. admitted the violations and the superior court ordered A.I. to continue on probation for one year and ordered him into a substance abuse treatment program.
During the next eighteen months, the State filed four additional petitions to revoke A.I.'s probation. A.I. admitted that he used alcohol, marijuana, and synthetic marijuana on multiple occasions and that he failed to remain in placement at a Presbyterian Hospitality House group home. He also admitted that the superior court ordered him to complete the Alaska Military Youth Academy program and that he failed to complete that program.
After considering A.I.'s behavior on probation, the superior court ordered A.I. into an institutional placement. However, the court deferred the order and gave A.I. another opportunity to avoid the placement by successfully completing treatment at the Hanson House — a Youth Advocates of Sitka program.
Three months later, the State filed the petition that led to this appeal, alleging that A.I. failed to remain at the Hanson House and that he used marijuana. A.I. admitted both counts and the court held a contested disposition hearing.
In anticipation of the disposition hearing, a juvenile probation officer prepared a violation report (essentially, a juvenile presentence report). According to the report, in addition to the petitions to revoke A.I.'s probation listed above, A.I. had also been charged three times with minor consuming alcohol. The first charge resulted in a diversion to youth court and an ultimate dismissal, and the other two charges resulted in convictions. The report also disclosed that in June 2013, A.I. played a major role in organizing an escape from the Fairbanks Youth Facility, which included a plan to assault staff members. Further, A.I. had been taken to the emergency room three times for being highly intoxicated.
Although this case is the only time A.I. has been formally adjudicated a delinquent minor, A.I. had been in detention facilities eight times, in the Alaska Military Youth Academy, in four residential treatment programs, and in two outpatient treatment programs. Based on A.I.'s age, history, behavior patterns, and the fact that the court had deferred its institutionalization order based on A.I.'s placement at the Hanson House, the author of the report recommended that A.I. be institutionalized until he turned nineteen.
At the disposition hearing, A.I.'s probation officer in Sitka testified about the events leading up to the most recent petition to revoke A.I.'s probation. He testified that the Sitka program was chosen as an appropriate placement because A.I. had a history of leaving his placements but still needed residential care, and that placing him in the Sitka program removed him from the peer group that encouraged his delinquent behavior. He reported that A.I. knew the Hanson House program was his last chance to complete treatment outside of a locked facility.
While in the Hanson House, A.I. used marijuana and ran away from the program. Authorities tried without success to locate A.I., and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Based on A.I.'s poor history in unsecured placements, the authorities and A.I.'s treatment team decided A.I. would not be returned to the Hanson House program when he was found. A.I. returned to the Hanson House five days after running away. He said that he spent those five days in the dugout at a baseball field, stealing food and beverages from a store. He also tested positive for marijuana.
Based on A.I.'s history of failing to stay sober and his repeated failed placements in programs, group homes, foster homes, and the military youth academy, A.I.'s probation officer recommended institutionalizing A.I. to give him the secure, structured setting that would be his best chance of modifying his behaviors and breaking his cycle of delinquency.
At the disposition hearing, staff members from the Fairbanks Youth Facility — where A.I. would be placed if the court ordered him to be institutionalized — described the educational and treatment opportunities available at the facility. They explained that when a court orders a youth to be institutionalized at the facility under AS 47.12.120(b)(1), the youth is not necessarily in the facility the entire time. As soon as the youth makes progress on his treatment plan, the program contemplates a structured release into the community.
See AS 47.12.120(b)(1).
The prosecutor emphasized that A.I. needed treatment but that he had been unable to get it because he repeatedly left his placements. She argued that a lesser level of restraint would not meet A.I.'s needs because he would continue his pattern of running away, and that only an institutional placement would prevent him from running away.
A.I.'s attorney pointed out his original offense was smoking marijuana at school. She argued it was not a serious offense and that he had been caught up in the system for de minimis violations since he was fourteen.
A.I. told the court that treatment had not worked for him and that sending him to more treatment would not be any different. He also explained that being in residential treatment exposed him to other substance abusers and juvenile delinquents and did not give him the opportunity to meet and socialize with sober people. He told the superior court that he wanted to be a heavy equipment operator, an occupation that requires sobriety, and he explained his plan for becoming one.
The judge noted that he needed to consider A.I.'s best interests and the interests of the public. The judge explained to A.I. that the treatment providers and authorities disagreed with A.I. about whether treatment would be beneficial for him. The judge agreed with A.I.'s attorney that the initial charges against A.I. were relatively minor, but he found that A.I.'s subsequent conduct was problematic.
Regarding the least restrictive disposition, the judge noted that A.I. had been in detention approximately eight times. The judge also noted that he had released A.I. into placement alternatives that were less restrictive than being institutionalized — including electronic monitoring and being placed with his mother, and in residential programs — and that A.I. had been given multiple opportunities to participate in substance abuse treatment. The judge expressed concern about A.I.'s conduct when he ran away from the Hanson House program in Sitka — sleeping in a baseball dugout and stealing food to survive.
The superior court discussed the educational and treatment opportunities A.I. would have at the Fairbanks Youth Facility, and A.I.'s need for those services. He concluded that A.I. needed to be placed in a secure facility for him to receive the services necessary to help him succeed. He ordered A.I. committed to the Department of Health and Social Services under AS 47.12.120(b)(1) until his nineteenth birthday.
A.I. appeals this institutionalization order.
Why we uphold the superior court's institutionalization order
Alaska Delinquency Rule 11(e) and AS 47.12.140(2) require the superior court to impose "the least restrictive" disposition that will meet the juvenile's needs and will protect the community. The court must consider: (A) the seriousness of the minor's delinquent act, his attitude, and his parents' attitude; (B) the minor's culpability; (C) the minor's age; (D) the minor's prior criminal or juvenile record and his success or failure of prior consequences; (E) the specific deterrent effect on the minor from committing other delinquent acts; (F) the need to commit the minor to prevent further harm to the public; (G) the interest of the public in securing the minor's rehabilitation; and (H) the ability of the state to care for the minor.
AS 47.12.140(1)(A)-(H).
The State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the court's disposition is the least restrictive appropriate disposition. The court can order institutionalization when "the State presents substantial evidence that lesser measures will likely fail to meet" the goals of disposition.
Alaska Delinquency Rule 11(e).
B.F.L. v. State, 233 P.3d 1118, 1124 (Alaska App. 2010).
--------
A.I. argues that the superior court erred in institutionalizing him because it was not the least restrictive disposition available. He contends his probation violations did not involve escalating misconduct but rather consisted of his continued use of drugs and alcohol, leaving placements, and committing petty thefts. A.I. claims he should have been returned to the Hanson House program or placed in a more secure residential program to continue to work on his behavior.
The record reveals, however, that A.I. had been given multiple opportunities for a less restrictive placement. The record also supports the court's findings that A.I. needed education and substance abuse treatment and would not receive them in a less restrictive environment. We therefore conclude that the superior court did not err by institutionalizing A.I. pursuant to AS 47.12.120(b)(1).
Conclusion
We AFFIRM the judgment of the superior court.