In re D.F.S.

Citations: 684 A.2d 1281; 1996 D.C. App. LEXIS 244; 1996 WL 668113Docket: No. 95-FS-754

Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals; November 13, 1996; District Of Columbia; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, the appellant pled guilty to possession of cocaine and was adjudicated delinquent, receiving one year of probation with conditions. The trial court denied her request for probation without judgment under D.C.Code 33-541(e), determining that this provision applies exclusively to criminal proceedings, not juvenile ones. The court noted that terms like "conviction," which are central to D.C.Code 33-541(e), do not pertain to juvenile cases, where different terminology is used, such as "consent decree" or "order of adjudication." The appellant argued that the language and legislative history of D.C.Code 33-541(e) suggested it could apply to juveniles, but the court disagreed, emphasizing that the statute's plain language restricts its application to criminal proceedings. It highlighted that the juvenile court's procedures do not allow for a criminal conviction, and therefore, the trial judge had no discretion to apply D.C.Code 33-541(e) in this case. The court also reasoned that applying this code to juveniles would be pointless, as it is intended for first-time drug offenders in criminal contexts, allowing for the possibility of probation without a guilty judgment and subsequent expungement of records.

A juvenile respondent benefits from specific legal protections under D.C. Code, particularly D.C.Code 16-2331(b) through 16-2334(a), which ensure the confidentiality of all case-related records, in contrast to the provisions of D.C.Code 33-541(e) that apply solely to adult criminal proceedings. Juveniles are not "convicted" and automatically have their records kept confidential, independent of probation compliance. In this case, the appellant, as a juvenile, has received probation and retains confidentiality of her court records, which can also be sealed if a motion is filed under D.C.Code 16-2335. The existing confidentiality protections for juveniles suggest that the provisions in D.C.Code 33-541(e) would be redundant if applied to juvenile cases. The interpretation of D.C.Code 33-541(e) as applicable only to adults is supported by its language and legislative history, which explicitly addresses juvenile offenders separately in the Controlled Substances Act. Therefore, it is concluded that D.C.Code 33-541(e) does not pertain to juvenile cases under the Family Division's jurisdiction. The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Upon probation violation, the court can adjudicate guilt and proceed with sentencing but may also choose to dismiss the case and discharge the individual from probation before the maximum term ends. If no violations occur during probation, the court must discharge the individual and dismiss the case at the end of the probation period. This discharge is without a formal adjudication of guilt, but a nonpublic record will be kept for future court reference regarding eligibility under this provision. This discharge is not classified as a conviction, and thus does not impose legal disabilities associated with a criminal conviction. After dismissal, individuals may apply to expunge all official records related to their case, and if granted, the court's order effectively restores their status prior to the arrest or indictment. The individual is not considered guilty of perjury for failing to disclose the arrest or trial in future inquiries. The appellant's concern regarding a two-year waiting period for sealing records is deemed not substantial, as juvenile records remain confidential during this time. The appellant's argument that expungement provisions apply to both juvenile and adult defendants is rejected, as expungement is already accessible to qualifying juvenile respondents under existing law, while adults must meet probation conditions.