CHILD UNDER EIGHTEEN APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

ResetAA Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

S.R.L., A CHILD UNDER EIGHTEEN APPELLANT v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

APPELLEE v. COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

NO. 2011–CA–000110–ME

-- April 20, 2012

BEFORE:  TAYLOR, CHIEF JUDGE;  CLAYTON AND STUMBO, JUDGES. BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS S.R.L. AND K.L.:  La Mer Kyle–Griffiths Assistant Public Advocate Department of Public Advocacy Frankfort, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:  Jack Conway Attorney General of Kentucky Frankfort, Kentucky Monica Meredith Robinson Bullitt County Attorney Shepherdsville, Kentucky Shelly L. Alvey Assistant County Attorney Shepherdsville, Kentucky

OPINION AND ORDER

DISMISSING

S.R.L., a child under eighteen, brings Appeal No. 2011–CA–000110–ME and K.L., a child under eighteen, brings Appeal No.2011–CA–000111–ME from August 18, 2010, final dispositional orders of the Bullitt Circuit Court, Family Court Division.1  We dismiss both appeals.

In the August 18, 2010, dispositional orders, the family court found that S.R.L. and K.L. had committed the juvenile status offenses of Beyond Control of School under Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 630.020(2).   Both S.R.L. and K.L. challenge the validity of the dispositional orders in their respective appeals.

During the pendency of these appeals, S.R.L. and K.L. reached majority and were no longer subject to the Kentucky Unified Juvenile Code or to the jurisdiction of the family court as status offenders.   It, thus, appeared that the above-styled appeals were rendered moot.   As a result thereof, we rendered a Show Cause Order directing S.R.L. and K.L. to show good cause why the appeals should not be dismissed.

S.R.L. and K.L. filed a response to the show cause order.   In the response, they argued that these appeals were rendered moot because of delay in the appeal process and not due to their actions.   Thus, they urged this Court to, nevertheless, review the merits of the above-styled appeals.

To begin, the record discloses that S.R.L. and K.L. did not timely file notices of appeal from the final dispositional orders.   Instead, they each filed motions for belated appeal with this Court, and these motions were granted by a motion panel of our Court on March 14, 2011.   However, we observe that belated appeals are only available in criminal actions, and status offenses are not considered criminal in nature.  Com. v. B.J., 241 S.W.3d 324 (Ky.2007).   Therefore, it appears that the motion panel of this Court may have improvidently granted S.R.L. and K.L. belated appeals.

Nonetheless, the record is clear that S.R.L. and K.L. have reached the age of majority and are no longer subject to the provisions of the Kentucky Unified Juvenile Code or to the jurisdiction of the family court.   Consequently, these appeals have been rendered moot as the family court could not afford S.R.L. and K.L. any relief in the event the case was remanded by this Court.2  See Medical Vision Group, P.S.C. v. Philpot, 261 S.W.3d 485 (Ky.2008).   For the same reasons, we must conclude that this Court no longer has jurisdiction to grant the relief requested.

Now, therefore, be it ORDERED that Appeal Nos.2011–CA–000110–ME and 2011–CA–000111–ME are DISMISSED as moot.

ALL CONCUR.

ENTERED:  April 20, 2012

/s/ Jeff S. Taylor

CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF APPEALS

TAYLOR, CHIEF JUDGE: 1

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More