State ex rel. Newton

I dissent from the majority opinion because (1) it does not contain a complete statement of pertinent facts; (2) it uses a patent error review as provided for in La.C. Cr.P. art. 920, which is contrary to La.C. J.P. arts. 24 and 97 and La.C.Cr.P. art. 15; and (3) it applies hypertechnical pleading (notice) requirements of criminal proceedings to these juvenile delinquency proceedings contrary to La. Const, of 1974, art. I, § 19, La.C.J.P. arts. 24, 47, 48 and 50, La.C.Cr.P. art. 15 and La.C.C.P. arts. 1154 and 1635.

PATENT ERROR

For the reasons assigned in State in Interest of Handy, 559 So.2d…