Opinion
NO. 2020-CA-0138
05-13-2020
STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF J.J.
Leon Cannizzaro, District Attorney Scott G. Vincent, Assistant District Attorney DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ORLEANS PARISH 619 S. White Street New Orleans, LA 70119 COUNSEL FOR STATE Katherine M. Franks LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT P.O. Box 220 Madisonville, LA 70447 COUNSEL FOR JUVENILE
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION APPEAL FROM JUVENILE COURT ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2019-092-07-DQ-B, SECTION "B"
Honorable Tammy M. Stewart, Judge Judge Paula A. Brown (Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Paula A. Brown) Leon Cannizzaro,
District Attorney
Scott G. Vincent,
Assistant District Attorney
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
ORLEANS PARISH
619 S. White Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
COUNSEL FOR STATE Katherine M. Franks
LOUISIANA APPELLATE PROJECT
P.O. Box 220
Madisonville, LA 70447
COUNSEL FOR JUVENILE
APPEAL DISMISSED
PAB
TFL
DYD
This is a juvenile delinquency appeal. The juvenile, J.J., appeals his disposition. For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
Pursuant to the Louisiana Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, Rules 5-1 and 5-2, the juvenile's initials, J.J., shall be used in all filings and opinions rendered by this Court to protect the juvenile's identity. See State in Interest of K.D., 2013-1274, p. 1 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/9/14), 140 So.3d 182, 183.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
J.J. was arrested on April 3, 2019, after being caught in a vehicle that was reported stolen. On April 16, 2019, the State filed a delinquency petition formally charging J.J. with the offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, a violation of La. R.S. 14:68.4. On the same date, the juvenile court found probable cause. J.J. entered a denial on April 24, 2019, of the offenses charged in the petition. J.J. was in custody from April 16, 2019 until May 16, 2019.
The facts and circumstances surrounding J.J.'s unauthorized use of a motor vehicle are not germane to the issue presented to this Court on appeal.
On December 11, 2019, J.J.'s delinquency hearing was held. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court judge adjudicated J.J. delinquent. The defense waived all delays and the juvenile court imposed the following disposition:
It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the juvenile is a proper person for secure commitment to the Department of Public Safety and Corrections and is hereby committed to the Department of Public Safety and Corrections for a period of time not to exceed January 2, 2020. The youth is ordered RELEASED on January 2, 2020. The matter will close by operation of law on January 2. 2020. The court will allow the youth to be placed at Boys Town if a bed is available and the youth meets the criteria to be accepted.
On December 18, 2019 the Office of Juvenile Justice ("OJJ") filed in the juvenile court a request for release order, writing:
On 12/11/19, the youth was placed in OJJ custody for 3 weeks. According to the IJJIS, the youth was detained from April 16[,] 2019 to May 13, 2019 on case number 2019-092-07-DQ-B. As a result of the youth receiving credit for time served, the petition closed on 12/11/19.The juvenile court denied the request for release on December 19, 2019.
"IJJIS" is an acronym for Integrated Juvenile Justice Information System.
This appeal, dated December 23, 2019, followed.
J.J. served his disposition and was released on January 2, 2020. On January 6, 2020, the juvenile court conducted a probation review and in ordering "this CASE CLOSED[,]" J.J. was relieved of all outstanding fines, fees, and responsibilities.
ERRORS PATENT
This Court has adopted a practice of conducting an error patent review in juvenile delinquency proceedings. State in Interest of W.B., 2016-0642, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/7/16), 206 So.3d 974, 978. A review of the face of the record revealed a potential errors patent. To the extent J.J.'s assignment of error encompasses this potential errors patent, both are simultaneously discussed infra.
DISCUSSION
J.J. argues the juvenile court erred in failing to afford him credit for time served pursuant to La. Ch.C. art. 898(A). He further contends that in the juvenile court judge denying his request for early release resulted in his incarceration for a term three weeks longer than initially imposed.
La. Ch.C. art. 898(A) provides in pertinent part:
A. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no judgment of disposition shall remain in force for a period exceeding the maximum term of imprisonment for the felony forming the basis for the adjudication. The court shall give a child credit for time spent in secure detention prior to the imposition of disposition.
As noted supra, after being adjudicated a delinquent, the juvenile court ordered J.J. into continued custody of OJJ from December 11, 2019 until January 2, 2020, at which time he was released. Although J.J. argues that he is entitled to credit for time served, he, nevertheless, acknowledges that he cannot receive the time back that he served. J.J.'s only request is that the juvenile court's error be noted by this Court. After a review of the record, we find that J.J.'s assigned error and potential errors patent are moot. See State ex rel. T.S., No. 2007-2274, 2008 WL 2329752, at *1-2 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/6/08) (where the court found that because the juvenile had already served his disposition and was released, the issue of credit for time served was moot).
In State in Interest of J.H., 2013-1026, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/19/14), 137 So.3d 748, 751 (citations omitted), this Court held that rendering an opinion consistent with the juvenile's assignment of errors and potential error patent that were moot would constitute an advisory opinion. "It is well established that appellate courts will not render advisory opinions from which no practical results can follow." Succession of Dedais, 2018-0914, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/10/19), 268 So.3d 1271, 1273, writ denied, 2019-00720 (La. 9/6/19), 278 So.3d 365. "As a result, Courts have established the rule that moot questions will not be considered on appeal." Id. "The Louisiana Constitution implicitly prohibits courts from issuing advisory opinions which will not affect the parties' rights." Id. (citing Evans v. Louisiana Patient's Comp. Fund, 2002-0538, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/25/04), 869 So.2d 234, 238 (citations omitted). "[A]n appellate Court, as a matter of judicial economy, has a right to consider the possibility of mootness on its own motion and to dismiss the appeal if the matter has become moot." Id. (citing Whitney Nat. Bank of New Orleans v. Poydras Ctr. Associates, 468 So.2d 1246, 1248 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1985).
As such, because J.J. is no longer incarcerated, we find the matter is moot and dismiss the appeal.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, J.J.'s appeal is dismissed as moot.
APPEAL DISMISSED