Rule 36B. Appeal to the Superior Court in Juvenile Cases [Abrogated. See M.R.U. Crim. P. 1(e) for the effective date.]

Committee Notes

[Advisory Notes to former Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure]

Advisory Committee Note—1989 [M.R. Crim. P. 36B.] Rule 36B(a) contains the language of former District Court Rule 37A(a). Former Rule 94(a) is transferred to new Rule 36B(b). Rule 36B(c) is taken from District Court Rule 37A(b). Rule 36B(d) contains the language of District Court Rule 37A(c).

Advisory Committee Notes—1999 [M.R. Crim. P. 36B.] This amendment eliminates references to "a bindover order" because an intermediate appeal to the Superior Court by or on behalf of a juvenile from a bind-over order under 15 M.R.S. § 3402(1)(C) has been repealed by the 118th Legislature. PL 1997, c. 645, § 12. This amendment also corrects an incorrect statutory reference to the Maine Juvenile Code.

Advisory Committee Notes—2000 [M.R. Crim. P. 36B(a).] This amendment does three things. First, it requires that the notice of appeal conform to "form number JV-012 prepared by the Judicial Branch Forms Committee." Second, it brings subdivision (a) into conformity with the Supreme Judicial Court's "Administrative Order: Mandatory use of Transcript Order Form," effective October 15, 1997. See Me. Rptr. 699-709 A.2d CL. Third, it eliminates the current requirement that the docket entries transmitted from the District Court to the Superior Court be "certified" in view of the recent automation of court records.

Advisory Committee Note—2002 [M.R. Crim. P. 36B(a).] The amendment conforms the time the appellee has in which to order additional portions of the transcript with M.R. App. P. 5(b).

Advisory Committee Note—2003 [M.R. Crim. P. 36B(a).] The amendment replaces the term "offense" with the term "juvenile crime." The purpose of this nonsubstantive change is to substitute the applicable terminology of the Juvenile Code for the less specific term "offense." See 15 M.R.S. §§ 3003(16) and 3103 (2003).

Advisory Note – November 2011 The Legislature enacted P.L. 2011, ch. 384, effective September 28, 2011 adopting several amendments to the juvenile code, particularly to 15 M.R.S. §§ 3311-A, 3311-B, and 3311-C, to authorize deferred dispositions in juvenile cases, basically employing the same practices as are currently applied to deferred dispositions in adult criminal cases. Pursuant to 15 M.R.S. § 3311-D, a juvenile is given the capacity to appeal to the Superior Court from a finding of a failure to comply with a deferred dispositional requirement and imposition of a dispositional alternative. As with appeals from findings of failure to comply with deferred disposition requirements in adult criminal cases, see M.R. App. P. 19, section 3311-D provides that this appeal to the Superior Court is "not as of right." The amendments to Rule 36B(a) and (b) are designed to integrate the discretionary appeal provision of the new law into the appellate review process of the Superior Court. Subdivision (b) contains two factors that the reviewing court must consider in deciding whether to reach the merits of the appeal: that the appeal presents a significant issue of fact or law, and that consideration on the merits would serve the interests of justice. Finally, the words "pursuant to 15 M.R.S. § 3402(3)" have been added to Rule 36B(a) to identify the statutory basis for the right of the State to appeal from the failure of the juvenile court to order a bind-over.

Advisory Note – July 2012 This amendment to the second paragraph of Rule 36B(a) replaces the "District Court" with "Judicial Branch" and replaces "Electronic Recording Division" with the current title of the office: "Office of Transcript Production."

Advisory Note – December 2013 The amendment modifies Rule 36B, subdivision (c) in two respects. First, it changes the period of time within which a juvenile may take an appeal from the juvenile court to the Superior Court from 5 days to 7 days after the entry of an order of disposition or other appealed order in response to the statutory change made to 15 M.R.S. § 3402(5) by P.L. 2013, ch. 234, § 11, effective October 9, 2013. Second, in light of Rule 2(b)(5) of the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure it eliminates "excusable neglect" as the criterion for an extension of time in favor of a "showing of good cause" and the extension periods therein provided. [Maine Rule of Criminal Procedure 36C was in effect until the Maine Rules of Unified Criminal Procedure took effect. See M.R.U. Crim. P. 1(e) for the effective date.]