In the Matter of ADT

In the Matter of ADT, 2015 MT 178 (June 30, 2015) (McKinnon, J.) (5-0, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court improperly applied new probationary conditions prior to finding ADT violated the terms of his youth court disposition; and (2) whether the district court properly determined that ADT violated conditions of his youth court disposition.

Short Answer: (1) Yes, and (2) yes.

Affirmed

Facts: ADT was adjudicated a delinquent youth and juvenile offender in February 2012, upon his admission to one count each of sexual assault and sexual intercourse without consent. The most suitable place for ADT to receive sex offender treatment was Pine Hills. However, because ADT was 10 months away from turning 18, and the program normally takes 17-24 months, Youth Court services was concerned he would not be able to complete the program. The youth court ordered ADT committed to DOC for placement at Pine Hills in the sex offender treatment program “until eighteen (18) or sooner released.” ADT was designated a Level II sex offender but exempted at that time from having to register.

Upon the state’s motion, and with defense counsel’s agreement, the youth court transferred jurisdiction to the district court in December 2012. The following month, an adult probation officer asked the deputy county attorney to amend ADT’s supervision by adding 41 conditions standard for adult probationers convicted of sex offenses. Because conditions cannot be amended without the probationer’s consent, the parole officer presented it to ADT for his signature, and he signed without consulting an attorney. The district court signed an order adding the 41 conditions to ADT’s probation and supervision in February 2013.

In March 2013, the probation officer reported ADT had violated four of the 41 conditions added to his probation. The report also stated ADT was terminated from his outpatient se offender treatment program because he had admitted to drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana, driving under the influence, associating with minors who were drinking, and had viewed pornography at least once.

Procedural Posture & Holding: The state moved to revoke ADT’s probation, and ADT moved to dismiss, arguing the 41 provisions violated § 41-5-208(4) and exceeded the scope of the youth court’s disposition and transfer order. The court held a hearing, denied the motion, and set an adjudicatory hearing. The court found ADT violated his probation and placed him on “formal probation” with Adult Probation and Parole. ADT appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss, and the Supreme Court affirms.

Reasoning: (1) It is well established that, following a youth court disposition, a youth is not considered a “defendant” and has not been “convicted” of a crime. To transfer jurisdiction from youth to district court under § 41-5-208(4), the youth must have violated the youth court disposition, and any conditions for adult probation must be imposed after a hearing.

The 41 new conditions may not be imposed unless they are consistent with the underlying youth court disposition. Moreover, they “may not be imposed absent a hearing and absent a finding that ADT had violated his disposition.” ¶ 15. The district court therefore erred in denying ADT’s motion to dismiss regarding conditions that were not originally in the youth court disposition or transfer.

(2) Successful completion of outpatient sex offender treatment was required to comply with ADT’s youth court disposition. The evidence at the revocation hearing supports a finding that ADT violated the terms of his youth court disposition when he was terminated from outpatient sex offender treatment. Having found ADT in violation, the court could impose the 17 conditions is imposed following the revocation hearing. Although the district court relied on the wrong reason in denying the state’s motion to dismiss, it reached the correct result.