October 25, 2018
Petition for Review of an Order of the District of Columbia
Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services
from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
(DEL-1482-16) (Hon. Robert D. Okun, Trial Judge)
S. Satoskar, Public Defender Service, with whom Samia Fam,
Amy Phillips, and Daniel Gonen, Public Defender Service, were
on the brief for petitioner-appellant.
Y. Sheppard, Assistant Attorney General, with whom Karl A.
Racine, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Loren
L. AliKhan, Solicitor General, and Rosalyn Calbert Groce,
Deputy Solicitor General, were on the brief for
Blackburne-Rigsby, Chief Judge, and Beckwith and McLeese,
MCLEESE, ASSOCIATE JUDGE
in the custody of the Department of Youth Rehabilitation
Services (DYRS) because he was found to have committed
delinquent acts. R.O. challenges DYRS's decision to
confine him in a secure residential facility. We vacate and
remand for further proceedings.
as noted, the following facts appear to be undisputed. In May
2017, R.O. was committed to DYRS's custody until his
twentieth birthday, based on determinations in two separate
juvenile proceedings that he was involved in a robbery and an
assault with significant bodily injury. In November 2017,
R.O. and DYRS signed a community-placement agreement (CPA)
that placed R.O. in a group home. In the CPA, R.O. agreed
among other things to "[o]bey all laws, ordinances,
rules and regulations of the District of Columbia and all its
surrounding jurisdictions;" "[o]bey all school
personnel;" "comply with all conditions of the GPS
agreement" if placed on electronic monitoring; and have
no new arrests.
January 2018, R.O. was arrested for unlawful entry. R.O. was
arrested again in February 2018, this time for armed
carjacking. The following day, the Superior Court determined
that R.O. had been arrested for carjacking without probable
cause. The charges against R.O. in the carjacking case were
the carjacking arrest, R.O.'s case manager, Jeffrey
Hammond, recommended that R.O. be placed in a secure
residential facility. In his recommendation, Mr. Hammond
stated among other things that R.O. had been arrested for
unlawful entry and carjacking, had been suspended from
school, had missed school, and had failed to comply with the
terms of his GPS monitoring agreement.
held a hearing to determine whether R.O.'s community
placement should be revoked. The hearing took place before a
panel of three DYRS employees. The panel heard evidence from
two witnesses, neither of whom was placed under oath.
DYRS's sole witness was Mr. Hammond. Mr. Hammond stated
that R.O. had been arrested for carjacking, but Mr. Hammond
acknowledged that a Superior Court judge had subsequently
determined that there was no probable cause for the arrest.
Mr. Hammond further acknowledged that, other than a police
report alleging that a carjacking took place, DYRS did not
have any evidence that R.O. had actually committed
Hammond stated that R.O. had been arrested for unlawful
entry. DYRS also submitted a police report alleging that R.O.
had committed unlawful entry. Mr. Hammond stated that R.O.
had acknowledged being aware that he had been barred from the
area at issue. Mr. Hammond further stated that R.O. had been
suspended from school for his involvement in an altercation
with another youth. Finally, Mr. Hammond stated that R.O. had
failed to keep his GPS device ...