A.I. v. State

223 A.3d 910

A.I.

v.STATE of Maine

Docket: Cum-19-239

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: October 7, 2019

Decided: January 21, 2020

Sarah E. Branch, Esq. (orally), Fairfield & Associates, Portland, for appellant A.I.

Christine Thibeault, Asst. Dist. Atty., Cumberland County District Attorney's Office, Portland, for appellee State of Maine

Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Jason Anton, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Corrections

Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Hunter C. Umphrey, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and Human Services

Emma E. Bond, Esq., Zachary L. Heiden, Esq., and Meagan S. Sway, Esq., ACLU of Maine Foundation, Portland, for amici curiae ACLU of Maine Foundation and the Juvenile Law Center

Jeffrey M. Skakalski, Esq., and Peter Rice, Esq., Disability Rights Maine, Augusta, for amicus curiae Disability Rights Maine

Mary Bonauto, Esq, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, Boston, Massachusetts, for GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders

Courtney Beer, Esq., Kids Legal, Portland, for amicus curiae Kids Legal

Tina Heather Nadeau, Esq., Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Portland, for amicus curiae Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ.^*

SAUFLEY, C.J.

[¶1] A.I. was less than fifteen years old during the events in question in this appeal. He had been charged with multiple juvenile offenses, and the District Court (Portland, Kelly, J. ) ordered him held at Long Creek Youth Development Center while awaiting trial on those charges. After a hearing, the proceedings were suspended when he was determined to be, at least temporarily, incompetent to stand trial. Shortly thereafter, he filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking release from Long Creek, and he now appeals from the resulting judgment in which his petition was denied by a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court (Gorman, J. ).

[¶2] Prior to oral argument on his appeal, the youth received the relief that he had requested—transfer to an appropriate residential treatment facility—and the District Court (Powers, J. ) subsequently dismissed all charges against him. The State moved to dismiss the appeal on grounds of mootness. The youth opposed the motion. Although we recognize the important public interests involved in the incarceration and treatment of Maine's youth, we conclude that the unique facts of this case preclude us from announcing any opinion that could guide future cases, and we dismiss the appeal as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶3] Twelve¹ juvenile petitions filed by the State against the youth initiated the State's latest involvement with A.I. On October 1, 2018, the District Court (Kelly, J. ) entered an order of detention directing that the youth be detained at Long Creek while awaiting resolution of the pending juvenile charges. Between October 1, 2018, and June 10, 2019, the court held several detention hearings. See 15 M.R.S. § 3203-A(5) (2018). During that time, the court issued eight orders of detention, none of which was appealed. See 15 M.R.S. § 3402(1)(D) (2018). The youth remained at Long Creek throughout those proceedings.

[¶4] On April 23, 2019, following a competency hearing, the court (Powers, J. ) found that the youth was not competent to proceed with an adjudication on the charges and suspended the proceedings. See 15 M.R.S. § 3318-A (2018). Pursuant to 15 M.R.S. § 3318-B(1) (2018), however, the court also found a substantial probability that the youth would become competent to stand trial in the foreseeable future. In compliance with the same statute, the court referred the youth to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for evaluation and treatment of his mental health and behavioral needs. Two days later, the youth filed a motion for contempt, alleging that DHHS had failed to comply with the order finding him currently incompetent to stand trial. The motion was later withdrawn without prejudice.

[¶5] On May 14, 2019, the youth filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus before a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court (Gorman, J. ). A hearing was conducted within three weeks of the petition, on June 6, 2019. On June 10, 2019, the single justice denied the youth's petition for writ of habeas corpus, and he appealed, bringing the matter before us. Before the oral argument on the appeal, the youth was released from Long Creek and placed in a residential treatment facility, and the charges against him were dismissed.

II. DISCUSSION

[¶6] Notwithstanding the focused advocacy of the youth's attorney and the prompt action of the courts, A.I. remained incarcerated at Long Creek for nearly four months following the order finding him incompetent, until his transfer to an out-of-state residential treatment facility with adequate treatment. It is the delay in accomplishing that appropriate placement that forms the gravamen of this appeal.

[¶7] Before reaching the merits of the youth's arguments regarding that delay, we must first consider the justiciability of the appeal. Along with his arguments on the merits, the youth asserts (A) that his appeal is not moot because the State retains the power to return him to Long Creek and, alternatively, (B) that even if his appeal is moot, it is appropriate for us to review the appeal because his case fits exceptions to the mootness doctrine.

A. Mootness

[¶8] Except in extraordinary circumstances, addressed below, we will not address issues that have lost their controversial vitality. Leigh v. Superintendent, Augusta Mental Health Inst. , 2003 ME 22, ¶ 6, 817 A.2d 881. Here, there is no question that the appeal is moot; the youth is receiving treatment outside of Long Creek, and all charges have been dismissed. He is not presently at risk of incarceration at Long Creek. While this appeal has been pending, the District Court (Powers, J. ) ultimately found him incompetent to proceed, with no substantial probability of becoming competent in the foreseeable future, and it dismissed all underlying juvenile charges against him. There is no decision that we could announce in this habeas corpus appeal that would have any effect on the youth himself. Thus, there can be no question that the case is moot. See id. ¶ 8. The only question is whether there exists an exception to the mootness doctrine that would cause us to address the merits of the appeal.

B. Exceptions to the Mootness Doctrine

[¶9] Cases that are moot may nonetheless be considered if at least one of the three narrow exceptions applies. Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife , 2016 ME 57, ¶ 7, 136 A.3d 714. Specifically, we may consider an appeal despite its mootness if

(1) sufficient collateral consequences will result from the determination of the questions presented so as to justify relief; (2) the appeal contains questions of great public concern that, in the interest of providing future guidance to the bar and public we may address; or (3) the issues are capable of repetition but evade review because of their fleeting or determinate nature.

Id. (quoting Halfway House, Inc. v. City of Portland , 670 A.2d 1377, 1380 (Me. 1996) ). The youth argues that the exceptions to the mootness doctrine for both questions of great public concern and issues capable of repetition but evading review apply.

[¶10] We are not persuaded that this is an issue that falls within the exception for issues capable of repetition but evading review, particularly given the youth's access to prompt and repeated detention review hearings, see 15 M.R.S. § 3203-A(11) (2018), any of which could have been appealed, see 15 M.R.S. § 3402(1)(D), and prompt access to a habeas corpus hearing, which was addressed quickly through appeal. See Leigh , 2003 ME 22, ¶ 8, 817 A.2d 881.

[¶11] We next consider whether the mootness exception relating to matters of great public concern applies here. When addressing the exception for "questions of great public concern," we examine "whether the question is public or private, how much court officials need an authoritative determination for future rulings, and how likely the question is to recur." Brunswick Citizens for Collaborative Gov't , 2018 ME 95, ¶ 9, 189 A.3d 248 (quoting Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting , 2016 ME 57, ¶ 8, 136 A.3d 714 ). On this issue, the youth refers to the State's interest in protecting minors with cognitive challenges and urges us to announce new law providing guidance to the courts, state agencies, and the public.

[¶12] We are fully persuaded that the State's policies and the Court's jurisprudence relating to the incarceration of Maine's youth are "of great public concern."² See, e.g. , State v. J.R. , 2018 ME 117, ¶¶ 11-14, 27, 191 A.3d 1157 (discussing the importance of rehabilitative treatment for incarcerated youth and decrying the lack of available state resources addressing the issue). Decisions by the Legislature allocating the State's fiscal resources and decisions by the Executive Branch creating policies related to the use and coordination of State resources have been a recent focus of significant public attention, particularly as they apply to Maine's youth.³

[¶13] Furthermore, the matter before us is directly relevant to actions of government regarding resource allocations and State agency actions. As the circumstances of this case demonstrate, when a youth is deemed incompetent to stand trial and continues to be held in a State detention facility, State agencies will have urgent—but differing and sometimes overlapping—responsibilities.⁴ Those agencies must work together to ensure that services provided pursuant to those responsibilities are coordinated, and, particularly with regard to services for the restoration to competency of an incarcerated youth, are expedited. Cf. T.L. v. State , 670 So. 2d 172, 174 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996) (holding that Florida's "...