No Appeal for the Imposition of Adult Sentences on Juveniles Who Violate Terms of Conditional Release

In the Matter of J.S.P., No. 118,790 (Kan. Ct. App. Mar. 15, 2019).

Issue: Does a court have jurisdiction over a juvenile offender’s appeal from the revocation of a juvenile sentence and the imposition of an extended juvenile jurisdiction proceeding (“EJJP”) stayed adult sentence?

Answer: No.  The plain language of K.S.A. 38-2380 (Supp. 2018) does not give a court jurisdiction to consider the revocation of a juvenile sentence and the imposition of a stayed adult sentence.

Facts: A juvenile offender, sentenced in an EJJP, violated the terms of his conditional release.  The State therefore moved to revoke his juvenile sentence and impose his adult sentence, and the district court granted the State’s motion.  The offender appealed the sentence, raising three arguments: (1) his conditional release contract did not state that a violation could lead to the imposition of his stayed adult sentence, denying him of due process, (2) the imposition of his adult sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment under state and federal constitutions, and (3) insufficient evidence demonstrated he violated the terms of his conditional release.

Discussion: The State argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the juvenile offender’s appeal because the offender lacked statutory authority to appeal the imposition of the adult sentence.  The court agreed.  The plain language of K.S.A. 38-2380 permits a juvenile offender to appeal only from “an order of adjudication or sentencing, or both.”  The statute says nothing about a right to appeal from a revocation of a juvenile’s conditional release and the imposition of a stayed adult sentence. 

Key Authorities:
K.S.A. 38-2380(b) (Supp. 2018) (providing that the revised Juvenile Justice Code only permits a juvenile to “appeal from an order of adjudication or sentencing, or both”).