State of Louisiana in the Interest of F.M. .

STATE OF LOUISIANA IN * NO. 2024-CA-0599
THE INTEREST OF F.M.
*
COURT OF APPEAL
*
FOURTH CIRCUIT
*
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******

APPEAL FROM
JUVENILE COURT ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2022-252-01-DQ-A, SECTION “A”
Honorable Clinton Smith,
******
Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott
******
(Court composed of Chief Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge
Nakisha Ervin-Knott)

Jason R. Williams
District Attorney
Brad Scott
Assistant District Attorney
ORLEANS PARISH
619 South White Street
New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR STATE/APPELLANT

REVERSED AND REMANDED
December 4, 2024

NEK
TFL

RML

The State of Louisiana (the “State”) appeals the juvenile court’s July 31,

2024 judgment dismissing its delinquency petition. For the following reasons, we

reverse the juvenile court’s judgment and remand this case back to the juvenile

court for further proceedings.

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 8, 2022, the State filed a screening action against the

juvenile, F.M.1, for aggravated burglary in violation of La. R.S. 14:60 and sexual

battery in violation of La. R.S. 14:43.1. F.M. was in the State’s custody at the time

the action was filed, and the juvenile court conducted a continued custody hearing

on September 9, 2022, after which it released F.M. into the custody of his father.

On November 29, 2023, the State filed a delinquency petition officially

charging F.M. with the above crimes. Thereafter, the juvenile court attempted to

conduct an answer hearing on eight separate occasions. Each time, F.M. was not

served, and the hearing had to be reset. The record before us contains multiple

notes that the State could not serve F.M. and that defense counsel could not get in

contact with his client. On June 7, 2024, defense counsel filed a Motion to Dismiss

1In accordance with La. Ch.C. art. 412, as well as Rules 5-1 and 5-2 of the
Uniform Rules of Courts of Appeal, we will refer to the juvenile by his initials.

1

Petition for Failure to Timely Prosecute, seeking to dismiss the State’s claims

pursuant to La. Ch.C. arts. 854, 875, and 8772; yet, the juvenile court delayed

consideration of the motion in order to allow the State more time to attempt

service. Upon discovering that the address contained in the record was not where

F.M. resided, the State moved to appoint a special process server. However, when

the special process server failed to serve F.M., the juvenile court finally granted

defense counsel’s motion and dismissed the State’s claims. This appeal followed.3

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

The State assigns one error on appeal—the juvenile court erred in dismissing

this case prior to serving F.M. and conducting an answer hearing.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Typically, an appellate court will apply an abuse of discretion standard to

determine whether a juvenile court erred in dismissing a delinquency petition.

State in Interest of S.F., 2024-0383, pp. 5-6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/7/24), __ So. 3d

__, __, 2024 WL 4432247, *4 (citations omitted). However, when the juvenile

court misapplies the law, as it did here, the reviewing court will conduct a de novo

review. Id. at p. 6, __ So. 3d at __, 2024 WL 4432247 at *4 (citation omitted).

2 La. Ch.C. art. 854 governs the time limitation in which to conduct an answer

hearing. La. Ch.C. art. 877 governs the time limitation in which to conduct an
adjudication hearing. La. Ch.C. art. 875 pertains to motions to dismiss.
3 An unsigned motion for appeal is in the record before us. However, the State

orally moved for an appeal at the conclusion of the court’s ruling, and the juvenile
court noted at the hearing and in its written judgment the State’s intention to take
an appeal. We find this sufficient to invoke our appellate jurisdiction for the
purpose of this expedited appeal. See State v. Hall, 2013-0453, p. 4 (La. App. 4
Cir. 10/9/13), 127 So. 3d 30, 34 (finding that a motion for appeal need not be in
writing when such a motion is made and granted orally).

2

DISCUSSION

Article 854 of the Louisiana Children’s Code requires that a juvenile appear

for an answer hearing within fifteen days of the filing of a delinquency petition;

however, the juvenile court may extend that period for good cause. La. Ch.C. art.

854(B)-(C). The juvenile court has broad discretion in determining what

constitutes “good cause.” See State in Interest of S.F., 2024-0383, p. 5, __ So. 3d at

__, 2024 WL 4432247 at *4 (quoting State in Interest of R.W., 2016-1187, p. 6

(La. App. 4 Cir. 3/2/17), 213 So. 3d 13, 17). What constitutes “good cause” is a

determination that is made on a case-by-case basis. State in the Interest of L.D.,

2014-1080, pp. 4-5 (La. 10/15/14), 149 So. 3d 763, 765 (quoting State in the

Interest of R.G., 2006-1625, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/18/07), 963 So. 2d 475, 477).

Nevertheless, the record must fully support that determination. Id. Notably, La.

Ch.C. art. 854 does not provide a remedy for the failure to conduct a timely answer

hearing. State in the Interest of S.F., 2024-0383, p. 9, __ So. 3d at __, 2024 WL

4432247 at *6. However, our jurisprudence holds that releasing the juvenile from

custody, rather than dismissing the charges against him, is the proper remedy for

an untimely answer hearing. Id. at p. 11, __ So. 3d at __, 2024 WL 4432247 at *6

(citing State in Interest of L.D., 2014-01, p. 10, 139 So. 3d at 685).

We find the present situation mirrors that which occurred in State in the

Interest of G.S., 2019-0605 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/4/19), 287 So. 3d 752. In G.S., the

juvenile court dismissed the State’s delinquency petition after a year had elapsed

without an appearance by the juvenile. Id. at pp. 3-4, 287 So. 3d at 755-56. After

his arrest, the juvenile had been released into the care of his guardian. Id. at p. 2,

287 So. 3d at 755. Thereafter, the State was unable to locate and serve the juvenile,

leading to the juvenile court’s dismissal of the case See id. at pp. 3-4, 287 So. 3d at

3

755-56. On appeal, this Court determined that the juvenile court did not have the

authority to dismiss the case under La. Ch.C. art. 8774 because the juvenile had

never appeared to answer the petition. Id. at p. 7, 287 So. 3d at 757. In reversing

the juvenile court, this Court stated, “[T]he burden in discovering the whereabouts

of [a missing juvenile] rests equally on the attorneys in the case as well as the

juvenile court judge.” Id. at p. 14, 287 So. 3d at 762. Ultimately, this Court

remanded that case so that the juvenile court could conduct a proper La. Ch.C. art.

854 hearing “focusing on the welfare of [the juvenile] and arriv[ing] at solutions to

ensure a proper resolution to [the] delinquency proceeding.” Id. at pp. 13-14, 287

So. 3d at 762.

Similarly, just this year, this Court reversed and remanded another

delinquency case wherein the juvenile court had dismissed a petition prior to

instituting proper service on the juvenile and conducting an answer hearing. See

State in Interest of S.F., 2024-0383, __ So. 3d __, 2024 WL 4432247. Therein, the

case was reversed and remanded back to the juvenile court after a finding that the

juvenile court did not have authority under La. Ch.C. art. 854 to dismiss the

petition. Id. at pp. 11-12, __ So. 3d at __, 2024 WL 4432247 at *7. Rather, the only

proper remedy was for the juvenile court to release the juvenile from custody,

which had already happened and rendered the issue moot. Id. On remand, the

juvenile court was instructed to take the proper procedural steps to determine why

the juvenile had not appeared to answer the petition, why he had been removed

from the court’s jurisdiction, and why he had not reported a change of address. Id.

at p. 13, __ So. 3d at __, 2024 WL 4432247 at *7.

4 Louisiana Children’s Code article 877(B) provides that an adjudication hearing

must be held within ninety days of the juvenile’s answer to the petition.

4

In line with the above-cited cases, we also find that the juvenile court erred

in dismissing the delinquency petition. Article 854 does not provide for the

dismissal of the petition. The burden of determining the whereabouts of F.M. falls

not only on the State but also on defense counsel and the juvenile court. We find it

appropriate for the juvenile court and the parties to continue their efforts in

locating F.M.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the juvenile court’s judgment

dismissing the delinquency petition, and we remand this case back to the juvenile

court for further proceedings consistent with the guidance in this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

5