Full text
State v. R. J.-K. W.
— 621 —
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). Argued and submitted May 26; order committing youth to the custody of Oregon Youth Authority vacated, remanded for further proceedings June 29, 2022
In the Matter of R. J.-K. W., a Youth. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. R. J.-K. W., Appellant. Douglas County Circuit Court 20JU07063; A175649 (Control), A175650
Jason R. Thomas, Judge pro tempore. Ginger Fitch argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Youth, Rights & Justice. Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General. Before James, Presiding Judge, and Joyce, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge pro tempore. JAMES, P. J. Order committing youth to the custody of Oregon Youth Authority vacated; remanded for further proceedings.
622 State v. R. J.-K. W.
JAMES, P. J. Youth appeals from a delinquency adjudication for possession of a stolen vehicle, raising two assignments of error. We reject the first assignment without discussion and write only to address the second. Under ORS 419C.478(1), the juvenile court “may, in addition to probation or any other dispositional order, place a youth offender who is at least 12 years of age in the legal custody of the Oregon Youth Authority [OYA],” but in doing so, the court “shall include written findings describing why it is in the best interests of the youth offender to be placed with the youth authority or the department.” Here, the state agrees with youth that the juve- nile court’s order contains no written findings to explain its conclusion that OYA custody is in youth’s best interest. The state concedes that the omission amounts to an error in the juvenile court’s dispositional order, and that the error requires us to “vacate and remand for the court to make such written findings as it deems appropriate to satisfy the statute’s requirements.” State v. J. R. C., 289 Or App 848, 850, 412 P3d 1201 (2018). We agree. Order committing youth to the custody of OYA vacated; remanded for further proceedings.