In re Phillip P.

Gilbert, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County dismissed a series of juvenile petitions because the disposition hearing was not concluded within thirty (30) days following the adjudicatory hearing that had been held in those cases. The State, as it is permitted to do by Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc.

Code Ann. § 12-301, 1 has appealed to this Court requesting that we reverse the orders of dismissal and remand the matter to the circuit court for further proceedings, namely, the completion of the disposition hearing. The record discloses that Phillip P., Michael P., Brian S., Andrew D., Larry S., and Paul N., juveniles, all appeared in the juvenile court on charges that they had committed delinquent acts. The acts included breaking and entering and malicious destruction of property. The destruction took the form of senseless and wanton spraying or throwing of paint around the interior of the complainant’s building, intensive damage to two generators, the pouring of tar over a radial saw, and damage to the chimney stack.

Entrance to the building appears to have been gained by forcing or "popping” rivets or bolts from metal siding panels, then bending the metal in such a way as to allow the juveniles to enter the premises. While the petitions alleged that there was theft involved, the record before us is devoid of the events occurring at the adjudicatory hearing. We have inferred the facts from an examination of the photographs that were received into evidence. Prior to the adjudicatory hearing or immediately after ²³⁷ that hearing, each of the juveniles and the parents of the juveniles, signed a "waiver of separate disposition hearing.” The waiver provided: "Pursuant to Section 3-820 (A) [sic][ 2 ] of the Courts and Judicial Article,[ 3 ] we, the undersigned, understanding that we have a definite right to have a separate hearing for disposition in this matter, freely, knowingly, and voluntarily waive that right and request disposition be made at the conclusion of the Adjudicatory hearing.” During the course of the disposition hearing, it developed that the dollar amount of the damages had not been determined.

The court then continued the hearing from that date, November 12,1980, until the "figures” on "restitution” could be ascertained, at which time the cases were to be "reset.” When the matter was scheduled for disposition on February 11, 1981, the juveniles-appellees moved to dismiss the cases on the ground that the court was required to complete the disposition hearing within thirty days of the adjudicatory hearing. Patently, that had not been done, and, therefore, the juvenile court no longer had jurisdiction over the matter. The judge reasoned that the State should have rescheduled the cases within the prescribed time limits, and that their failure to so do meant that he had "no alternative ... contrary to ... [his] feelings, desires and wants, ... [but to] dismiss these ... Petitions.” These appeals followed.

We think the judge was not in the predicament in which he seems to have viewed himself. As we see it, the motions should have been denied and the disposition completed. We ²³⁸ shall, therefore, reverse the judgments of the circuit court and remand to the same for further proceedings. We shall now explain why we take that action.

Md. Rule 915 a provides that: "If after an adjudicatory hearing the court determines that the allegations of the petition at issue in the adjudicatory hearing have been sustained, it shall promptly schedule a separate disposition hearing. The disposition hearing shall be held no later than thirty days after the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing.” To reach the same result as the juvenile court judge we would be compelled to read Rule 915 a as meaning that the disposition hearing must be commenced and completed within thirty days of the adjudicatory hearing. Obviously, events