T.L.W. v. State of Alabama

Rel: May 1, 2026

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
OCTOBER TERM, 2024-2025
_________________________

CR-2025-0412
_________________________

T.L.W.

v.

State of Alabama

Appeal from Mobile Juvenile Court
(JU-23-1374.09)

ANDERSON, Judge.

T.L.W. appeals her delinquency adjudication in the Mobile Juvenile

Court for the delinquent act of third-degree escape, § 13A-10-33, Ala.

Code 1975. She claims that the juvenile court erred when it denied her

motion to dismiss the delinquency petition on double-jeopardy grounds.
CR-2025-0412

This argument fails, however, and the judgment of the juvenile court is

affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

In October 2023, the juvenile court adjudicated T.L.W. delinquent

for committing the delinquent act of third-degree domestic violence, and,

as part of T.L.W.'s sentence, the juvenile court placed her on probation.

(C. 14-15.) Thereafter, T.L.W. escaped from juvenile-detention officers

during a court-ordered mental-health appointment and remained at

large for approximately one month. (R. 5-6; Supp. R. 4, 11.) Once she was

captured, T.L.W.'s juvenile probation officer filed a petition to revoke her

probation, alleging that she had committed the new offense of escape. (C.

29, 54.) The State later filed a delinquency petition charging T.L.W. with

second-degree escape.1 (C. 5.)

The juvenile court addressed the revocation and delinquency

petitions during an April 8, 2025, hearing. At that hearing, T.L.W.

admitted to violating the conditions of her juvenile probation but denied

1The juvenile court later amended the charge against T.L.W. to
third-degree escape, at the State's request. (R. 4; Supp. R. 2-3, 6.)
2
CR-2025-0412

the allegations in the delinquency petition.2 (Supp. R. 2, 4-6.) The

juvenile court accepted T.L.W.'s admission, found that she was "in

violation of [her] probation," and committed her to the custody of the

Alabama Department of Youth Services ("DYS") for mental-health

treatment.3 (C. 22-23, 47; Supp. R. 6.) After admitting to the probation

violation, and during the same hearing, T.L.W. moved to dismiss the

delinquency petition under § 12-15-213(c), Ala. Code 1975, arguing that

the petition violated her double-jeopardy rights because she had

2A copy of the revocation petition is not included in the record on

appeal, but the reporter's transcripts indicate that both the petition to
revoke probation and the delinquency petition were based on T.L.W.'s
escape from custody. (R. 5; Supp. R. 4-6.)

3The juvenile-court referee's written findings and recommendation

concerning the April 8, 2025, hearing contains a checked box reading
"adjudicated delinquent." (C. 22.) The hearing transcript, however,
indicates that the referee concluded that T.L.W. had violated the
conditions of her probation but did not adjudicate her delinquent of third-
degree escape. (Supp. R. 6.) This Court observes that the form used by
the referee did not contain any check-box option for a violation of
probation. Additionally, a later order indicated that T.L.W. denied the
allegations in case number JU-2023-1374.09, the case in which she was
charged with third-degree escape. See note 1, supra. The juvenile court
did not adjudicate T.L.W. delinquent based on the third-degree escape
until May 9, 2025, when T.L.W. admitted to the charge. (C. 22, 47-48; R.
1-5.)

3
CR-2025-0412

admitted to violating her probation. (Supp. R. 6-7.) The juvenile court

requested additional briefing on the issue. (Supp. R. 8-10.)

After considering the parties' legal arguments, the juvenile court

entered an order denying T.L.W.'s motion to dismiss. (C. 44-46.) The

court noted that "there are two simultaneously pending proceedings, one

in which the State alleges there is a violation of probation terms ordered

during a previous delinquency proceeding, and another based on a new

charge of Escape." (C. 44-45.) A revocation proceeding, the juvenile court

explained, "is 'not a stage of a criminal prosecution,' " whereas a

delinquency proceeding "is a criminal prosecution." (C. 45.) For those

reasons, the juvenile court concluded that double jeopardy "does not

apply to simultaneous or subsequent probation revocation proceedings

based on a new charge." (C. 45.)

During a May 2025 hearing, T.L.W. admitted to the delinquent act

of third-degree escape, see note 1, supra, but reserved the double-

jeopardy issue for appeal. (R. 1-5.) The juvenile court accepted T.L.W.'s

admission, adjudicated her delinquent of third-degree escape, and

committed her to DYS custody. (C. 48; R. 5.) This appeal followed.

4
CR-2025-0412

Discussion

On appeal, T.L.W. argues that the juvenile court legally erred when

it denied her motion to dismiss the delinquency petition on double-

jeopardy grounds. She specifically argues that § 12-15-213(c)'s text, when

considered in the context of other statutory provisions, expands double-

jeopardy protections to include petitions to revoke juvenile probation and

that, in her case, jeopardy attached once she admitted to the probation-

revocation petition that was based on the same act of escape for which

she was also charged by way of a delinquency petition. The State

disagrees, arguing that the same legal principles applicable to

adult-probation-revocation proceedings apply in the juvenile context.

Moreover, the State contends that the statutes cited by T.L.W. do not

indicate that the Legislature intended to expand double-jeopardy

protections in juvenile matters to include probation-violation proceedings

and that, under settled precedent, jeopardy did not attach when T.L.W.

admitted to violating her probation conditions by escaping from custody.

Given those arguments, the issues before us are (1) whether the

statutory provisions T.L.W. relies upon expand double-jeopardy

protections to include juvenile-probation-revocation proceedings and (2)

5
CR-2025-0412

whether our precedents concerning the applicability of the Double

Jeopardy Clause to adult-probation-revocation proceedings also apply to

juvenile-probation-revocation proceedings. As explained more fully

below, we conclude that § 12-15-213(c) does not expand double-jeopardy

protections to admissions made during juvenile-probation-revocation

proceedings, that our precedents concerning the applicability of the

Double Jeopardy Clause to adult-probation-revocation proceedings also

apply to juvenile-probation-revocation proceedings, and that, therefore,

the juvenile court did not err when it denied T.L.W.'s motion to dismiss

the delinquency petition for third-degree escape on double-jeopardy

grounds.

I.

T.L.W.'s argument on appeal is twofold. First, she contends that §

12-15-213(c) bars a subsequent delinquency petition once a juvenile

admits to a violation of probation based on the underlying criminal

conduct charged in the delinquency petition. (T.L.W.'s brief at 12-16.) To

support that assertion, T.L.W. cites § 12-15-213(c)'s use of the phrase "the

petition," contending that, because the Legislature did not specify the

type of petition, the term necessarily includes juvenile-probation-

6
CR-2025-0412

revocation petitions. (T.L.W.'s brief at 13-16.) Second, T.L.W. claims that

§ 12-15-213(c), when read in conjunction with §§ 12-15-132(c) and (e), Ala.

Code 1975, establishes that the Legislature intended to expand

double-jeopardy protections to include juvenile-probation-revocation

petitions. (T.L.W.'s brief at 17-21.) We disagree.

Initially, we find T.L.W.'s construction of § 12-15-213(c) to be

incorrect. That provision reads

"Criminal proceedings and other juvenile proceedings based
upon the offense alleged in the petition or an offense based
upon the same conduct are barred where the juvenile court
has begun taking evidence or where the juvenile court has
accepted from the child a plea of guilty to the petition."

" ' "In determining the meaning of a statute, this Court looks to the plain

meaning of the words as written by the legislature." ' " Craft v. McCoy,

312 So. 3d 32, 37 (Ala. 2020) (quoting Cockrell v. Pruitt, 214 So. 3d 324,

331-32 (Ala. 2016), quoting in turn DeKalb Cnty. LP Gas Co. v. Suburban

Gas, Inc., 729 So. 2d 270, 275 (Ala. 1998)).

" ' "Words used in a statute must be given their natural, plain,
ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, and where
plain language is used a court is bound to interpret that
language to mean exactly what it says. If the language of the
statute is unambiguous, then there is no room for judicial
construction and the clearly expressed intent of the
legislature must be given effect." ' "

7
CR-2025-0412

Id. (quoting Cockrell, 214 So. 3d at 332, quoting in turn City of Prattville

v. Corley, 892 So. 2d 845, 848 (Ala. 2003)). Appellate courts "review de

novo a question of law involving statutory construction." Ex parte Sacred

Heart Health Sys., Inc., 155 So. 3d 980, 985 (Ala. 2012).

"If the language of a statute is not 'plain' or is ambiguous, then --

and only then -- may a court construe or interpret it to determine the

legislature's intent." Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Walker Cnty., 292

So. 3d 317, 326 (Ala. 2019). A portion of a statute " 'is ambiguous when it

is capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in

either of two or more senses.' " S&S Distrib. Co. v. Town of New Hope,

334 So. 2d 905, 907 (Ala. 1976) (quoting State ex rel. Neelen v. Lucas, 24

Wis. 2d 262, 267, 128 N.W.2d 425, 428 (1964)). However, " '[b]ecause the

meaning of statutory language depends on context, a statute is to be read

as a whole … [and s]ubsections of a statute are in pari materia.' " Mitchell

v. State, 316 So. 3d 242, 247 (Ala. Crim. App. 2019) (quoting Ex parte

Jackson, 614 So. 2d 405, 406 (Ala. 1993)).

We begin, therefore, by noting that § 12-15-213(a) applies to cases

involving a "child charged with a delinquent act or who is alleged to be in

need of supervision" and requires that such children "shall be accorded

8
CR-2025-0412

the rights and privileges afforded by the Constitution of the United

States and the Constitution of Alabama of 1901." (Emphasis added.) A

"delinquent act" is defined as an "act committed by a child that is

designated a violation, misdemeanor, or felony offense pursuant to the

law of the municipality, county, or state in which the act was committed

or pursuant to federal law." § 12-15-102(6), Ala. Code 1975. On the other

hand, "probation" is defined as the "legal status created by order of the

juvenile court following an adjudication of delinquency or in need of

supervision whereby a child is permitted to remain in a community

subject to supervision and return to the juvenile court for violation of

probation at any time during the period of probation." § 12-15-102(21)

(emphasis added).

T.L.W.'s argument hinges on treating subsection (c) of § 12-15-213

as being wholly independent of subsections (a) and (b). T.L.W. maintains

that references to "the petition" in subsection (c) refer to any type of

juvenile petition -- including petitions to revoke probation -- rather than

being limited to petitions initiating the two types of juvenile proceedings

specifically referenced in subsection (a): those involving delinquency and

children in need of supervision. Yet, as stated previously, this Court must

9
CR-2025-0412

read and consider subsections of a statutory provision in pari materia.

Mitchell, 316 So. 3d at 247 (quoting Ex parte Jackson, 614 So. 2d at 406).

In other words, subsections of a statutory provision " 'should be construed

together to ascertain the meaning and intent of each.' " Ex parte Jackson,

614 So. 2d at 406 (quoting McCausland v. Tide-Mayflower Moving &

Storage, 499 So. 2d 1378, 1382 (Ala. 1986)).

" ' "The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that this
Court is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent as
expressed in the statute. … In this ascertainment, we must
look to the entire Act instead of isolated phrases or clauses …
and words are given their plain and usual meaning. …
Moreover, just as statutes dealing with the same subject are
in pari materia and should be construed together, … parts of
the same statute are in pari materia and each part is entitled
to equal weight." ' "

Craft, 312 So. 3d at 37 (quoting Cockrell, 214 So. 3d at 332, quoting in

turn First Union Nat'l Bank of Fla. v. Lee Cnty. Comm'n, 75 So. 3d 105,

111-12 (Ala. 2011)). " 'When interpreting a statute, this Court must read

the statute as a whole because statutory language depends on context.' "

Alabama Dep't of Revenue v. Greenetrack, Inc., 369 So. 3d 640, 650 (Ala.

2022) (quoting Bean Dredging, L.L.C. v. Alabama Dep't of Revenue, 855

So. 2d 513, 517 (Ala. 2003)). Indeed, "our rules of statutory construction

direct us to look at the statute as a whole to determine the meaning of

10
CR-2025-0412

certain language that is, when viewed in isolation, susceptible to multiple

reasonable interpretations." Ex parte Alfa Fin. Corp., 762 So. 2d 850, 853

(Ala. 1999).

At bottom, by latching on to the phrase "the petition" in § 12-15-

213(c), T.L.W. asks this Court to find ambiguity where none exists.

Construing § 12-15-213 as a whole, as we must, there is no ambiguity as

to what the Legislature intended. While it is true that proceedings in

juvenile court may be initiated by several different types of petitions,

references to "the petition" in subsections (b) and (c) of § 12-15-213 must

be informed by subsection (a)'s focus on proceedings initiated by petitions

to adjudicate children delinquent or in need of supervision.

To be sure, "[d]elinquency, child in need of supervision, and

dependency cases and proceedings" are all "initiated by the filing of a

petition by the juvenile court intake officer." § 12-15-120(a), Ala. Code

1975. In addition, proceedings to revoke probation or aftercare are

initiated "by the filing of a petition entitled 'petition to revoke probation'

or 'petition to revoke aftercare.' " § 12-15-132(b), Ala. Code 1975.4 But

4Other statutory provisions also reference various parties' ability to

file a "motion" seeking revocation of a probation order, see § 12-15-221(a),
Ala. Code 1975.
11
CR-2025-0412

only by a strained or tortured reading of § 12-15-213 could this Court find

that the Legislature intended to address two specific types of petitions in

subsection (a), yet -- for an unknown reason -- intended to change course

and reference all juvenile proceedings initiated by petition simply by

using the term "the petition" in subsection (c).

We also must give effect to " ' "the words as written by the

legislature." ' " Craft, 312 So. 3d at 37 (quoting Cockrell, 214 So. 3d at 331,

quoting in turn DeKalb Cnty. LP Gas Co., 729 So. 2d at 275). Notably, in

subsection (c), the Legislature did not refer to "any" petition, but used the

definite article "the" to identify which petition it was referencing. The

only sensible reading of the Legislature's reference to "the petition" in

this context is as a reference to a petition previously referenced in the

statute itself. Read in pari materia with subsection (a), this is plainly a

reference to the delinquency or child-in-need-of-supervision petition

initiating a proceeding governed by § 12-15-213(a). See Martin v. Martin,

329 So. 3d 1242, 1245 (Ala. 2020) (quoting Antonin Scalia & Bryan A.

Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 107-11

Thompson/West (2012)) ("It is a well-established principle of statutory

12
CR-2025-0412

interpretation that '[t]he expression of one thing implies the exclusion of

others.' "). For these reasons, we reject T.L.W.'s argument

T.L.W. cites State v. S.-Q.K., 292 Or. App. 836, 426 P.3d 659 (2018),

to support her interpretation of § 12-15-213(c), but that decision by the

Oregon Court of Appeals is unpersuasive. The statute at issue there did

not reference a particular type of juvenile proceeding but, instead, used

the term "adjudicatory hearing" to identify when jeopardy attaches and

specifically provided that

"proceedings in adult criminal court and other juvenile court
adjudicatory proceedings based on an act alleged in a petition
or citation to have been committed by a child, ward, youth or
adjudicated youth or allegations arising out of the same
conduct are barred when the juvenile court judge or referee
has begun taking evidence in an adjudicatory hearing or has
accepted a child['s] … admission … to the allegations of the
petition or citation."

Or. Rev. Stat. § 419A.190. Unlike § 12-15-213, the Oregon statute

contained no language limiting the statute's scope to particular types of

juvenile proceedings. Compare § 12-15-213(a), Ala. Code 1975, with Or.

Rev. Stat. § 419A.190. Additionally, the court in S.-Q.K. did not find that

the meaning of the Oregon statute was clear from its text, relying instead

upon legislative history. 292 Or. App. at 840-46, 426 P.3d at 661-65.

Finally, probation-revocation proceedings in an Alabama juvenile court

13
CR-2025-0412

occur only after "adjudicatory proceedings" have concluded, as Alabama

law defines "probation" as a "legal status created by order of the juvenile

court following an adjudication of delinquency or in need of supervision,"

see § 12-15-102(21), and it further restricts a juvenile court's authority to

enter an order of probation to two types of adjudicatory proceedings, and

only then when a child is determined to be in need of care or

rehabilitation, see § 12-15-215(c), Ala. Code 1975.

T.L.W. also contends that subsections (c) and (e) of § 12-15-132, Ala.

Code 1975, evidence the Legislature's intent to expand double-jeopardy

protections to juvenile-probation-revocation proceedings. Section

12-15-132(c) provides that "[p]robation or aftercare revocation

proceedings shall require clear and convincing evidence. In all other

respects, proceedings to revoke probation or aftercare shall be governed

by the procedures, safeguards, and rights and duties applicable to

delinquency and child in need of supervision cases contained in this

chapter." T.L.W. contends that the "word 'all' as it is used in the statute

cannot be given any meaning other than its all-inclusive definition."

(T.L.W.'s brief at 18.) According to her, this indicates that "the legislature

has extended all procedures, safeguards, rights and duties, including the

14
CR-2025-0412

protection against double jeopardy, to juvenile probation petitions."

(T.L.W.'s brief at 18.) T.L.W. also points to the text of § 12-15-132(e)

providing that a probation violation "for a child in need of supervision is

not an adjudication of delinquency," as evidence that the Legislature

intended to extend double-jeopardy protections to juvenile-

probation-revocation proceedings. (T.L.W.'s brief at 18.) In particular,

she argues that, because "no similar law exists for an adjudication in a

revocation of probation petition where the underlying charge is not a

[child-in-need-of-supervision] petition," then a "juvenile adjudication for

a violation of probation is an adjudication of delinquency." (T.L.W.'s brief

at 18.) Once again, we disagree.

Section 12-15-132(a) speaks to the nature of a probation-revocation

proceeding in juvenile court. First, that subsection recognizes that any

order of probation is entered "incident to an adjudication as a delinquent

child or a child in need of supervision," the same two types of proceedings

to which § 12-15-213 applies. Moreover, that subsection clearly frames

the focus of a juvenile-probation-revocation petition on obtaining "a

revocation of the order" of probation, not on whether an adjudication of

delinquency, or child in need of supervision, is warranted. § 12-15-132(a).

15
CR-2025-0412

At the conclusion of a juvenile-probation-revocation proceeding, if the

child is found to have violated the conditions of his or her probation, "the

juvenile court may extend the period of probation or aftercare or make

any other order of disposition specified for a child adjudicated delinquent

or in need of supervision." § 12-15-132(d).

As for § 12-15-132(e), that subsection makes clear that a child in

need of supervision -- a form of juvenile adjudication that is not overtly

criminal in nature5 -- does not become a delinquent child -- a form of

adjudication for conduct that is overtly criminal in nature6 -- merely due

to violations of the terms and conditions of an order of probation entered

by a juvenile court. That is, because an order of probation may be entered

following either type of adjudication, § 12-15-132(e) clarifies that the

violation of an order of probation by a child adjudicated as being in need

of supervision does not constitute a "delinquent act," making the child a

"delinquent child" as those term are defined in § 12-15-102(6) and (7). Of

course, for children placed on juvenile probation following adjudications

of delinquency, that provision is unnecessary and inapplicable. See Stiff

5See § 12-15-102(4), Ala. Code 1975.

6See § 12-15-102(6) and (7), Ala. Code 1975.

16
CR-2025-0412

v. Equivest Fin., LLC, 362 So. 3d 141, 147 (Ala. 2022) (quoting League of

Women Voters v. Renfro, 290 So. 2d 167, 169 (Ala. 1974)) (" 'Where

possible, statutes should be resolved in favor of each other to form one

harmonious plan and give uniformity to the law.' ").

Accordingly, despite T.L.W.'s arguments to the contrary, we

conclude that § 12-15-213(c) does not extend double-jeopardy protections

to juvenile-delinquency proceedings involving delinquent acts that were

previously the subject of juvenile-probation-revocation proceedings.

II.

In its brief, the State argues that this Court's precedents regarding

double jeopardy and adult-probation-revocation proceedings apply to

juvenile probation-revocation proceedings. (State's brief at 25-29.) This

Court has not previously addressed whether our precedents concerning

adult-probation-revocation proceedings and double jeopardy apply in the

juvenile context.

The question whether jeopardy attaches in a juvenile-delinquency

proceeding is well settled. In Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 521-27 (1975),

the United States Supreme Court considered whether a juvenile's double-

jeopardy rights were violated when he was tried as an adult for a crime

17
CR-2025-0412

for which a juvenile court had already found him delinquent. Holding

that the juvenile had been subjected to double jeopardy, the Court

explained that it could not "conclude … that a juvenile is not put in

jeopardy at a proceeding whose object is to determine whether he has

committed acts that violate a criminal law." Id. at 528-29. It further

clarified that "the risk to which the term jeopardy refers is that

traditionally associated with 'actions intended to authorize criminal

punishment to vindicate public justice.' " Id. at 529 (quoting United

States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 548-49 (1943)).

In Smith v. State, 368 So. 2d 298, 301 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978), this

Court synthesized the operative rule set out in the Breed decision: "Any

adjudicatory finding of delinquency in the juvenile court that the juvenile

had violated a criminal statute would cause jeopardy to attach." Since

then, we have reaffirmed this rule on multiple occasions. See, e.g.,

M.L.W. v. State, 372 So. 3d 241, 244 (Ala. Crim. App. 2022); Cruse v.

State, 489 So. 2d 694, 696 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986); Driver v. State, 456 So.

2d 1140, 1141-42 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984).

This Court has also established, at least in the adult context, that

jeopardy does not attach in noncriminal actions. Namely, "Alabama has

18
CR-2025-0412

consistently held that the protection afforded by the Double Jeopardy

Clause is not applicable to administrative proceedings." Ex parte K.H.,

700 So. 2d 1201, 1205 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997). That is, " ' "[t]he Double

Jeopardy Clause does not apply to actions that are not essentially

criminal. … Nor does it apply to disciplinary, parole, probation, or bond

revocation hearings, because they are administrative proceedings." ' " Id.

(quoting Coleman v. State, 642 So. 2d 532, 533-34 (Ala. Crim. App.

1994)).

We have not addressed, however, whether a juvenile court's

determination that a juvenile has violated a condition of probation by

committing a new delinquent act is the type of adjudicatory proceeding

to which jeopardy attaches. In other words, we have no precedent

establishing whether a juvenile-probation-revocation proceeding should

be treated the same as an adult-probation-revocation proceeding in terms

of whether jeopardy attaches at such a proceeding.

Other jurisdictions, however, have held that jeopardy does not

attach during juvenile-probation-revocation proceedings. For example, in

In re O'neal, 160 N.C. App. 409, 585 S.E.2d 478 (2003), the North

Carolina Court of Appeals considered whether double-jeopardy

19
CR-2025-0412

protections applied to juvenile-probation-revocation proceedings. There,

the juvenile was placed on probation for one year after being adjudicated

delinquent for committing a misdemeanor assault. 160 N.C. App. at 410,

595 S.E.2d at 479. A juvenile-court counselor filed the equivalent of a

revocation petition alleging that the juvenile had committed several

probation violations, including becoming "physically aggressive" with

another child. 160 N.C. App. at 410-11, 585 S.E.2d at 479-80. The juvenile

admitted to the allegations contained in the revocation petition, and the

juvenile court concluded that he had willfully violated his probation

conditions and placed him on probation for another year. 160 N.C. App.

at 411, 585 S.E.2d at 480.

Thereafter, the State filed a delinquency petition alleging that the

juvenile had committed misdemeanor assault based the same incident.

Id. The juvenile moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the

prosecution violated his double-jeopardy rights. Id. The juvenile court

denied his motion and ultimately entered an adjudication finding the

juvenile delinquent of simple assault. Id.

The juvenile's sole contention on appeal was that the juvenile court

had erred in denying his motion to dismiss because he had admitted to

20
CR-2025-0412

the same underlying conduct at his revocation hearing. 160 N.C. App. at

411-12, 585 S.E.2d at 480. The appellate court noted that the United

States Supreme Court, in Breed, "only extended double jeopardy

protection to adjudicatory or delinquency hearings," explained that a

" 'probation violation hearing is not a criminal prosecution,' " and

recognized that "[i]t is well established that double jeopardy protections

do not apply to probation revocation hearings." 160 N.C. App. at 412-13,

585 S.E.2d at 480-81 (quoting State v. Monk, 132 N.C. App. 248, 252, 511

S.E.2d 332, 334 (1999)). The court held that jeopardy did not attach when

the juvenile admitted to the underlying conduct during his probation-

revocation hearing. 160 N.C. App. at 413, 585 S.E.2d at 481. It reasoned

that, in the juvenile's case, the juvenile court had found by a

preponderance of the evidence only that the juvenile violated his

probation conditions, not that the juvenile was in fact delinquent. 160

N.C. App. at 413-14, 585 S.E.2d at 481.

The North Dakota Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in

In re O.F., 773 N.W.2d 206 (N.D. 2009). There, the juvenile was initially

adjudicated delinquent and placed under the supervision of the juvenile

drug court. Id. at 207. Later, law-enforcement officers cited the juvenile

21
CR-2025-0412

for violating his curfew, and, upon returning home, he killed his family's

pet kitten. Id. The drug court then recommended that the juvenile be

sanctioned; a juvenile referee followed that recommendation and

required the juvenile to complete six additional hours of community

service. Id.

The State then filed a delinquency petition alleging that the

juvenile had mistreated animals, in violation of N.D. Cent. Code § 36-

21.1-02(1), and that he was an unruly child for violating his curfew. Id.

The juvenile moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the prosecution

for mistreating an animal and for violating curfew -- the same conduct

for which the juvenile drug court had sanctioned him -- violated his

double-jeopardy rights. Id. The juvenile court denied the motion to

dismiss, and the juvenile pleaded guilty to the charges while reserving

his right to appeal the court's denial of his motion to dismiss. Id. On

appeal, he raised the same argument asserted in his motion to dismiss.

Id.

The North Dakota Supreme Court initially observed that there "is

no substantive difference between a sanction imposed on a participant by

a juvenile drug court for violation of the program's rules and revocation

22
CR-2025-0412

of probation by a district court for a defendant's violation of a condition

of probation." Id. at 208. It then noted that " ' "probation revocation … is

not a stage of a criminal prosecution," ' " and that "courts have long held

'the fact that one act formed the basis for both [a] criminal conviction and

[a] probation revocation does not violate double jeopardy.' " Id. (quoting

State v. Olson, 656 N.W.2d 650, 654 (N.D. 2003), and Merry v. State, 752

P.2d 472, 475 (Alaska Ct. App. 1988)). The court further explained that

a probation-revocation hearing " 'is considered a continuation of the

original prosecution for which probation was imposed[,] … [and] the sole

purpose is to determine whether a criminal defendant has breached a

condition of his existing probation, not to convict that individual of a new

criminal offense.' " Id. at 209 (quoting State v. Gautier, 871 A.2d 347, 361

(R.I. 2005)). " 'Consequently,' " it continued, " ' jeopardy does not attach to

probation-revocation proceedings, because "these proceedings are not

designed to punish [criminal defendants] for violation of a criminal

law." ' " Id.

The court held that the juvenile's double-jeopardy rights were not

violated by the juvenile court's delinquency adjudication, even though it

was premised on the same conduct that had previously formed the basis

23
CR-2025-0412

of the drug court's sanction. Id. It reasoned that, rather than adjudicating

the juvenile delinquent, the drug court and the juvenile referee had only

sanctioned the juvenile for violating program rules. Id. Accordingly,

jeopardy had not attached at the sanction proceedings. Id.

We find such reasoning persuasive and conclude that juvenile-

probation-revocation proceedings are not the type of adjudicatory

proceedings at which jeopardy attaches. In T.L.W.'s case, the probation-

revocation proceedings concerned T.L.W.'s punishment for her previous

delinquency adjudication for third-degree domestic violence -- i.e., the

juvenile court's purpose was to determine whether T.L.W. had violated a

condition of her probation, not to adjudicate the alleged delinquent act of

third-degree escape. In fact, the juvenile court did not adjudicate T.L.W.

delinquent of third-degree escape at the April 8, 2025, hearing; instead,

it found by clear-and-convincing evidence, based on her admission, that

T.L.W. was "in violation of [her] probation" when she escaped from

custody. (Supp. R. 6.) Because the probation-revocation proceedings were

noncriminal in nature, relating to T.L.W.'s legal status as being "subject

to supervision and return to the juvenile court for violation of probation

at any time during the period of probation," see § 12-15-102(21), jeopardy

24
CR-2025-0412

did not attach when T.L.W. admitted to violating the conditions of her

probation by escaping from custody.

T.L.W. argues that, "[i]n contrast to a criminal case, where a

revocation of probation implements an existing but suspended sentence,

a juvenile probation adjudication can result in an extended period of

probation, or 'any other disposition specified for a child adjudicated

delinquent or in need of supervision.' " (T.L.W.'s brief at 19 (quoting § 12-

15-132(d), Ala. Code 1975).) According to her, this "undetermined

potential deprivation of liberty," "demonstrates being twice put in

jeopardy when both petitions contain the same allegation, and supports

the added protections the law grants juvenile revocation of probation

proceedings that are not available in adult probation proceedings."

(T.L.W.'s brief at 19.) This is not so.

Section 12-15-132(d), Ala. Code 1975, states that if "a child is found

to have violated the terms of his or her probation … pursuant to a

revocation hearing, the juvenile court may extend the period of probation

… or make any other order of disposition specified for a child adjudicated

delinquent or in need of supervision." While this statute does grant

juvenile courts broad discretion to determine the ramifications of a

25
CR-2025-0412

juvenile's probation violation, this discretion does not transform a

juvenile-probation-revocation proceeding into the type of adjudicatory

hearing for which Breed mandates double-jeopardy protections.

In In re O'Neal, the court addressed this very issue. There, the court

acknowledged that, "in adult criminal cases[,] a violation of probation

usually results in the activation of a previously imposed sentence,"

whereas "in juvenile cases a probation violation usually results in a new

imposition of probation or even confinement, since there is generally no

suspended term of confinement in juvenile cases imposing probation."

160 N.C. App. at 413, 585 S.E.2d at 481. Despite this difference, the court

explained, "the better view is to treat a juvenile probation violation as

analogous to the revocation of probation in the criminal justice system."

Id. This is because the "imposition of a new term of probation, or possibly

confinement, in juvenile cases is punishment for the original offense for

which the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent" and does not punish "any

of the offenses that form the basis of the trial court's determination that

a probation violation has occurred." Id. We agree with this reasoning and

apply it here.

26
CR-2025-0412

In sum, we conclude that there is no legitimate reason to view

adult-probation-revocation proceedings differently than juvenile-

probation-revocation proceedings for purposes of our prior decisions

discussing whether the Double Jeopardy Clause applies to such

proceedings. To that end, we conclude that a juvenile-probation-

revocation proceeding should be treated the same as an adult-

probation-revocation proceeding for precedential purposes when

analyzing whether jeopardy attaches at such a proceeding.

In this case, the record on appeal reflects that the juvenile court

adjudicated T.L.W. delinquent of third-degree domestic violence in

October 2023 and placed her on juvenile probation. (C. 14-15.) Afterward,

in March 2025, T.L.W. escaped from custody while she was still serving

that probationary term for domestic violence. (R. 5-6; Supp. R. 4.) After

admitting to the probation violation resulting from that escape, but

before the juvenile court adjudicated her delinquent of third-degree

escape, the juvenile court ordered that T.L.W. be confined to the custody

of DYS for mental-health treatment. (C. 41; Supp. R. 4-6.) Only after the

probation-revocation hearing and initial commitment did the juvenile

court adjudicate her delinquent of third-degree escape. (C. 48; R. 5.) In

27
CR-2025-0412

other words, the juvenile court's initial placement of T.L.W. into DYS

custody was pursuant to her original domestic-violence adjudication, not

as punishment for third-degree escape. Under those circumstances, the

Double Jeopardy Clause was not implicated when T.L.W. admitted to the

violation of her juvenile probation flowing from her actions constituting

third-degree escape. See Ex parte K.H., 700 So. 2d at 1205 (quoting

Coleman, 642 So. 2d at 533-34); Woodberry v. State, 625 So. 2d 1159 (Ala.

Crim. App. 1993).

Conclusion

We conclude that the Legislature's enactment of § 12-15-213(c), as

well as § 12-15-132(c) and (e), did not expand double-jeopardy protections

to include juvenile-probation-revocation proceedings. Instead, we hold

that such proceedings serve the same purposes as adult-

probation-revocation proceedings, meaning the same double-jeopardy

principles that apply to adult-probation-revocation proceedings apply in

juvenile probation-revocation proceedings. Accordingly, the judgment of

the juvenile court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

28
CR-2025-0412

Windom, P.J., and Cole, J., concur. Minor, J., concurs in part and

concurs in the result, with opinion. Kellum, J., concurs in the result.

29
CR-2025-0412

MINOR, Judge, concurring in part and concurring in the result.

For the reasons stated in Part I of the main opinion, I concur in the

Court's judgment. I believe that, in light of this Court's holding in Part I

of its opinion, this Court need not address the issue in Part II.

30