J-S11029-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: Q.J.W., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: Q.J.W., A MINOR
No. 2143 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Dispositional Order Entered June 2, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Juvenile Division at No.: CP-09-JV-0000617-2016
BEFORE: OTT, STABILE, and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED MAY 17, 2018
Appellant Q.J.W. appeals from the June 2, 2017 dispositional order of
the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County (“juvenile court”), which
adjudicated him delinquent of driving under the influence (“DUI”) of a
controlled substance (marijuana) pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2). For
the reasons set forth below, we vacate the dispositional order, reverse the
adjudication of delinquency, and remand for a new adjudicatory hearing.
The facts and procedural history of this case are undisputed. On April
1, 2016, Appellant was arrested for, among other things, DUI. On December
1, 2016, the Commonwealth filed a petition alleging delinquency against
Appellant, who was seventeen years old at the time of the incident, charging
him with DUI offenses and possession of a small amount of marijuana.
J-S11029-18
On May 2, 2017, the juvenile court conducted an adjudicatory hearing,
at which Appellant appeared with his attorney, Douglas Dolfman, and father,
L.W. At the hearing, pursuant to Pa.R.J.C.P. 407, Appellant executed a written
colloquy, admitting to the DUI offense. The juvenile court also colloquied
Appellant on the record. In exchange for Appellant’s admission, the
Commonwealth withdrew the remaining DUI and possession charges. On June
2, 2017, the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing, following which it
placed Appellant on indefinite probation and ordered him to pay court costs
and perform fifty hours of community service.
Appellant pro se appealed to this Court. On July 19, 2017, the juvenile
court issued an order directing Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement
of errors complained of on appeal. Through Attorney Dolfman, Appellant
complied, raising a single assertion of error. Appellant claimed that the
juvenile court “erred as a matter of law by accepting a plea on the record that
was not voluntary or knowing.” Rule 1925(b) Statement, 8/8/17. In
response, the juvenile court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, concluding
that Appellant was not entitled to relief.
On appeal, Appellant repeats the same issue. In a one-paragraph
argument section, spanning barely twelve lines and citing only one legal
authority, Appellant claims that his admission was not voluntary or knowing.
Appellant’s Brief at 9 (unpaginated). Appellant specifically claims:
The judge erred by accepting the guilty plea because [he] did not
understand the nature of the guilty plea. The trial judge failed to
adequately apprise [Appellant] on all aspects of a guilty plea and
-2-
J-S11029-18
or admission of the facts in this matter. This lack of a record
demonstrates that the plea was not knowingly or voluntary.
Id. (sic).
Pennsylvania Rule of Juvenile Court Procedure 407 provides in pertinent
part:
A. Admissions. At any time after a petition is filed, the juvenile
may tender an admission to some or all of the delinquent acts
charged.
(1) Requirements.
(a) Before the court can accept an admission, the
court shall determine that the admission is
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.
(b) As a part of this determination, the court shall
ensure:
(i) an attorney has reviewed and completed the
admission colloquy with the juvenile pursuant to
paragraph C; and
(ii) there is a factual basis for the admission.
(c) At the hearing, the court shall conduct an
independent inquiry with the juvenile to determine:
(i) whether the juvenile understands the nature
of the allegations to which he or she is admitting
and understands what it means to admit;
(ii) whether the juvenile understands that he or
she has the right to a hearing before the judge
and understands what occurs at a hearing;
(iii) whether the juvenile is aware of the
dispositions that could be imposed and the
consequences of an adjudication of delinquency
that can result from an admission;
(iv) whether the juvenile has any questions
about the admission; and
-3-
J-S11029-18
(v) whether there are any other concerns
apparent to the court after such inquiry that
should be answered.
Pa.R.J.C.P. 407(A)(1)(a)-(c) (emphasis added). Thus, under Rule 407(A)(1),
the juvenile court must determine on the record whether a defendant’s
admission is tendered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily by conducting
an independent inquiry. The Comment accompanying Rule 407 provides:
Under paragraph (A)(1), the court is to determine if the admission
is knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made by asking
questions to ascertain the juvenile’s ability to comprehend the
written colloquy and to make an admission.
The written colloquy serves as an aid for the court in making its
determination that the admission is knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily made and it does not supplant the court’s
responsibility to conduct a sufficient inquiry to support its
determination pursuant to paragraph (A)(1).
Nothing in this rule prohibits the judge from reviewing the entire
written colloquy with the juvenile on the record or asking more
questions than required under paragraph (A)(1)(c).
The admission colloquy is similar to a guilty plea colloquy in
criminal court; however, the juvenile court judge has special
responsibilities under the Juvenile Act in providing a balanced
attention to the protection of the community, the imposition of
accountability for delinquent acts committed, and the
development of competencies to enable juveniles to become
responsible and productive members of the community.
Id. cmt. (emphasis added). As explained in the foregoing comment to Rule
407(A), a written colloquy does not obviate the need for an independent
inquiry by the juvenile court. Indeed, even if a defendant executes a written
admission colloquy, the juvenile court still is obligated to conduct an
-4-
J-S11029-18
independent inquiry to determine whether the defendant made a knowing,
intelligent and voluntary admission.
Instantly, as noted earlier, Appellant executed a written admission
colloquy, affirming that he tendered his admission to the DUI offense
knowingly and voluntarily. Additionally, Appellant affirmed that he understood
the direct and collateral consequences of the admission. Appellant also
affirmed that he was satisfied with his legal representation by Attorney
Dolfman and that he discussed the admission with his parent. Attorney
Dolfman also executed the admission colloquy, affirming that he has
“reviewed this form with [his] client.” Admission Form, 5/2/17, at 4.
As required under Rule 407(A), the trial court conducted an
independent, on-the-record, inquiry to determine whether Appellant tendered
his admission knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. In this regard, our
review of the adjudicatory hearing transcript reveals the following exchange
between the juvenile court and Appellant:
[The juvenile court]: [Attorney] Dolfman, did you have a chance
to go over the admission colloquy with [Appellant]?
[Attorney Dolfman]: I have, your Honor. I’ll have it marked as D-
1.
[The juvenile court]: [Appellant], you have gone over your
admission with your attorney here and initialed each of those
pages of that document and signed it. You understand that you
have a right to a trial on these matters and require the
Commonwealth to prove all of the elements of the remaining
charges that are in the Petition and have not been withdrawn, and
that you have the obligation for the opportunity to call any
witnesses that you wish to call in your defense, and you have
-5-
J-S11029-18
decided that you will admit that you committed the offenses as
charged in the Probable Cause Affidavit; is that right?
[Appellant]: Yes.
[The juvenile court]: And you are not under the influence of drugs
or alcohol that would give you any difficulty to intelligently and
voluntarily participate in these proceedings; is that correct?
[Appellant]: Yes.
[The juvenile court]: You verify that the contents of the Probable
Cause Affidavit as related to the remaining charges are true and
accurate; is that correct?
[Appellant]: Yes.
N.T. Adjudicatory Hearing, 5/2/17, at 2-3.
Based on the foregoing, we are constrained to conclude that the juvenile
court’s independent inquiry fell short of Rule 407(A)’s requirements. Although
the juvenile court substantially complied with Rule 407(A)(1)(b), it failed to
satisfy the requirements of subsection (1)(c)(i),(iii), and (iv). Specifically, the
juvenile court failed to ask Appellant sufficient questions to determine whether
he understood the nature of the DUI allegations to which he was admitting
and what it meant to admit them. The juvenile court also failed to ask
Appellant questions to determine whether he was aware of the dispositions
that could be imposed and the consequences of an adjudication of delinquency
that could result from an admission. Finally, the juvenile court failed to ask
Appellant whether he had any questions about the admission. Moreover, the
fact that Appellant executed a written admission colloquy is of no moment
because it does not relieve the juvenile court of its obligation to conduct an
independent inquiry that complies with Rule 407(A). As noted, the juvenile
-6-
J-S11029-18
court here failed to comply fully with the requirements of Rule 407(A)(1)(c),
and as a result, Appellant’s admission was not tendered knowingly,
intelligently and voluntarily. Accordingly, we vacate the June 2, 2017
dispositional order, reverse the adjudication of delinquency, and remand this
matter to the juvenile court for a new adjudicatory hearing consistent with
this memorandum.
Dispositional order vacated. Adjudication of delinquency reversed.
Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/17/18
-7-