In re J.S. 2025 Or. LEXIS 1645 (Or. 2025)

The Oregon Court of Appeals held that a plea colloquy has to affirmatively demonstrate that a young person understands the “consequences of an admission, including the maximum disposition associated with it”.

The court stated in relevant part: “For an admission by a youth to be valid, the youth must be aware, in a manner consistent with the youth’s age and intelligence, of the consequences of their admission, including the maximum disposition. See State v. C. L. E., 316 Or App 5, 11, 502 P3d 1154 (2021) (explaining, in the context of reviewing the validity of an admission, that a youth’s capability of understanding “var[ies] depending on the circumstances of the case, the age and intelligence of the child, as well as other factors”) (quoting State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Welch, 12 Or App 400, 411-12, 501 P2d 991 (1972), adh’d as modified on reh’g, 12 Or App 400, 507 P2d 401 (1973)). When the record does not affirmatively demonstrate that a youth’s admission was knowing and voluntary, and there might be additional evidence that could be considered by the juvenile court to determine the validity of the waiver, it may be appropriate to remand for further proceedings. Welch, 12 Or App at 409-10.

The record available to us—which includes an admissions document signed by youth, his counsel, the district attorney, and the juvenile judge—listing 364 days as the maximum—does not affirmatively demonstrate that youth understood nor that he was advised of the maximum potential 728-day term of commitment. Under Welch, a juvenile court plainly errs by accepting a youth’s admission without creating a record that affirmatively demonstrates that the youth was aware of the consequences of the admission, including the maximum disposition associated with it.”