1. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY — Interstate Compact — Juvenile — "Charged" — "Any Crime" — Returned — Requesting State — Adjudication — Not Required. Under Interstate Compact on Juveniles, a juvenile "charged" with being a delinquent by virtue of his having violated any "criminal law" is to be returned to the state so requesting; thus, where juvenile was charged with delinquency in New Mexico based on allegations of burglary, he was properly returned to that state even though there had been no adjudication of delinquency entered.
Opinion by JUDGE PIERCE.
R.H. appeals the juvenile court's order returning him to New Mexico pursuant to the Interstate Compact on Juveniles, § 24-60-701, et seq., C.R.S. 1973. We affirm.
In August of 1976, R.H., then 13 years old, made a first appearance (arraignment) in the Children's Court of Otero County, New Mexico. The summons and petition charged him with burglary and theft, and he pleaded guilty to burglary. Though a dispositional hearing was set for September 30, 1976, no order adjudicating him as a delinquent was entered. He was released on an informal basis to the personal recognizance of his mother, pending disposition. On September 25, 1976, his mother removed him from the New Mexico court's jurisdiction without its knowledge or consent, and brought him to Colorado.
New Mexico is a party to the Interstate Compact on Juveniles by virtue of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 13-16-1, et seq. (1976 Supp.). On October 17, 1976, New Mexico issued a requisition for the return of R.H. as an absconding delinquent juvenile under Article V of the Compact (§ 24-60-702(V), C.R.S. 1973). The Colorado juvenile court referee determined that the requisition was proper, and ordered R.H. to be turned over to New Mexico officials. However, on December 15, 1976, the Colorado juvenile court granted R.H.'s motion for a rehearing, finding that the requisition did not contain certified copies of the delinquency adjudication as required by Article V. The parties agreed to a continuance until copies of this document were received.
An order adjudicating R.H. as a delinquent was ultimately entered by the New Mexico Children's Court on December 28, 1976, and copies of this order were forwarded to the juvenile court in Colorado. At a hearing on January 10, 1977, the juvenile court found that all the requirements of Article V had been met, and ordered R.H. returned to New Mexico.
[1] R.H. first argues that the requisition was defective because he had not been adjudicated as a delinquent at the time it was issued. He also attacks the substance of the delinquency adjudication, arguing that under New Mexico law such adjudication requires a finding that the juvenile is in need of care and rehabilitation, a finding which the New Mexico court failed to make. See N.M. Stat. Ann. § 13-14-3(O), 1953. However, Article XVII of the Compact provides:
"Any juvenile, charged with being a delinquent by reason of violating any criminal law, shall be returned to the requesting state upon a requisition to the state where the juvenile may be found." Section 24-60-702(XVII), C.R.S. 1973. (emphasis added)
Thus, since R.H.'s charged delinquency was based on allegations of burglary, he was properly returned under the authority of Article XVII, which does not require a prior adjudication of delinquency.
[2] R.H. also argues that the juvenile court erred in ordering his return without finding that it was in his best interest to go back to New Mexico. We hold that Article V does not expressly require a finding of best interest, and we agree with those courts which have refused to read such a requirement into the statute's plain language. See, e.g., In re G.C.S., 360 A.2d 498 (D.C.App. 1976). Presumably, R.H.'s best interest will be fully considered in any New Mexico dispositional proceeding.
Judgment affirmed.
JUDGE SMITH and JUDGE KELLY concur.