Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-9206.
April 26, 2006.
Appeal from the Superior Court, First Judicial District, Ketchikan, Trevor N. Stephens, Judge. Trial Court No. 1CR-01-0004HCP.
Michael P. Heiser, Ketchikan, for the Appellant.
James Scott, Assistant District Attorney, and Stephen R. West, District Attorney, Ketchikan, and David W. Márquez, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer and Stewart, Judges.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
Superior Court Judge Trevor N. Stephens entered an order adjudicating sixteen-year-old D.F. a delinquent juvenile. Following a disposition hearing, Judge Stephens entered an institutional order, committing D.F. to the Department of Health and Social Services to institutionalize him for up to 2 years or until his nineteenth birthday. D.F. appeals to this court, arguing that Judge Stephens's order was not justified because institutionalization was not the least restrictive alternative available to the court. We affirm Judge Stephens's decision.
See AS 47.12.120(b)(1).
Before the court enters an institutional order, the court must consider available placement options and conclude that less restrictive alternatives will probably not accomplish the goals of rehabilitation of the minor and protection of the public. Alaska Statute 47.12.140 sets out the factors that the superior court is to consider in determining whether an institutional order is appropriate. Among these factors are the seriousness of the minor's delinquent acts, his age, his prior record including the success or failure of previous dispositions, and whether the placement is "most conducive to the minor's rehabilitation taking into consideration the interests of the public."
J.T.S. v. State, 825 P.2d 461, 464 (Alaska App. 1992).
AS 47.12.140(1)-(2).
Judge Stephens considered all these factors, including alternative placements. The incident that brought D.F. before the court was one where D.F., along with two other young men, broke into a logging facility, vandalizing it. The three caused approximately $25,000 in damage to the facility. As a result, D.F. admitted to offenses that would have been class C felonies if committed by an adult. Judge Stephens noted that, although D.F.'s co-defendants were older than he was, D.F. was fully culpable for his participation in this offense. He pointed out that D.F. had an extensive record of prior juvenile offenses and that prior orders and placements had been unsuccessful. He considered alternative placements, including an out-of-state placement at a residential treatment facility. Judge Stephens concluded that this placement would not provide the necessary degree of oversight of D.F.'s program and behavior. He also pointed out that D.F.'s family would almost certainly have less opportunity to see him if he were placed out of state. He concluded that an institutional placement would provide a structured and secure environment in which several programs would be available to D.F. to address his multiple behavioral, substance abuse, and educational needs.
In particular, Judge Stephens emphasized that D.F. was nearly seventeen years old at the time of the order. He noted that the State was running out of time to treat D.F. within the juvenile system. And he pointed out that D.F. would face felony charges and significant jail time if he continued to engage as an adult in the same sort of behavior he had engaged in as a juvenile. He concluded that the State had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the institutional order was the least restrictive alternative available to treat D.F.'s needs and to protect the public.
The record demonstrates that Judge Stephens fully considered D.F.'s current offenses and attitude, his prior record and performance within the juvenile system, and the alternatives available to rehabilitate D.F. The judge arrived at the conclusion that an institutional placement was the appropriate alternative only after considering all these factors and rejecting other possible alternatives. We accordingly affirm Judge Stephens's decision to enter the institutional order.
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.