In re J.H., Juvenile

VERMONT SUPREME COURT Case No. 22-AP-020
109 State Street
Montpelier VT 05609-0801
802-828-4774
www.vermontjudiciary.org
ENTRY ORDER
FEBRUARY TERM, 2022
In re J.H., Juvenile* } APPEALED FROM:
} Superior Court, Franklin Unit; Family Division
} CASE NO. 194-11-20 Frjv; 195-11-20 Frjv
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
Before the Court is appellant J.H.’s motion for permission to appeal the trial court’s denial
of youthful-offender status. The family division denied J.H.’s motion for youthful-offender status in
October 2021. It reasoned that further hearings would be necessary to resolve pending charges
against J.H., J.H. would be turning 22 years old in less than a week, and the family division would
lose jurisdiction over J.H. upon his 22nd birthday. J.H. filed a notice of appeal to this Court to
challenge the denial of youthful-offender status. We dismissed that interlocutory appeal because
J.H. had failed to adhere to Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 5.1 and seek permission from the
trial court in the first instance.
J.H. then filed a motion with the family division, seeking permission to appeal the youthful-
offender determination and to stay his transfer to the criminal division. In a November 2021 order,
the family division denied permission to appeal and the request to stay, concluding that it no longer
had jurisdiction over J.H. J.H. subsequently filed a motion in this Court seeking permission to
appeal.
On February 1, 2022, this Court issued an order directing J.H. to show cause why this matter
should not be dismissed as moot, in light of the family division’s limited jurisdiction under 33 V.S.A.
§ 5103(c)(2)(D) and J.H. having reached the age of 22. We ordered J.H. to file a memorandum of
law on this issue by February 14, 2022. We also stayed the trial court’s order denying J.H.’s request
for youthful-offender status and directing that the matter be set for a hearing in the criminal
division, pending this Court’s resolution of J.H.’s motion for permission to appeal. J.H. did not file
a memorandum of law on the mootness issue as ordered by this Court.
We do not reach the question of whether to accept the interlocutory appeal because we
conclude that, in any event, J.H.’s appeal is moot. The family division is a court of limited
jurisdiction, the scope of which is defined strictly by statute. In re C.L.S., 2021 VT 25, ¶ 10. The
relevant jurisdictional statute provides that “[j]urisdiction over a youthful-offender shall not extend
beyond the youth’s 22nd birthday.” 33 V.S.A. § 5103(c)(2)(D); see also 33 V.S.A. § 5286(d) (“If the
court finds that it is in the best interests of the youth and consistent with community safety to
continue the case past 18 years of age, it shall make an order continuing the court’s jurisdiction up to
22 years of age.”). These statutes provide no basis for the family division to retain jurisdiction over
a defendant who reaches the age of 22, and J.H. has offered no legal argument in support of the
notion that the family division retains jurisdiction over him.

2
“A case becomes moot—and this Court loses jurisdiction—when there no longer is an
actual controversy or the litigants no longer have a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the
case.” Paige v. State, 2017 VT 54, ¶ 7, 205 Vt. 287. Because the family division now lacks
jurisdiction, this Court can no longer grant J.H. the relief that he seeks—to be treated as a youthful
offender. Therefore, we do not reach the question of whether to grant permission to appeal and we
dismiss the appeal as moot. The temporary stay of the trial court’s order dated October 14, 2021
denying J.H.’s request for youthful-offender status and directing that the matter be set for a hearing
in the criminal division is lifted.
BY THE COURT:
Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice
Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice
Karen R. Carroll, Associate Justice
William D. Cohen, Associate Justice