## Facts

- A juvenile delinquency petition alleged Frank H., acting in concert with another youth, was found in a 1971 Pontiac Le Mans (allegedly unregistered) owned by Robbins Reef Buick Corporation, without permission to use the vehicle.
- Before any fact-finding hearing, the matter went through the New York Family Court probation service “intake” process under Family Court Act § 734 and Uniform Family Court Rules (22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 2506.3).
- Intake authorized probation to confer with the complainant and other persons to assess whether a petition should be filed and, where suitable, to attempt informal adjustment before a petition was filed.
- The intake process was described as informal, with probation acting in a screening/adjustment role rather than making judicial findings of delinquency.
- Participation in an intake conference was not compulsory; the process did not require a person to appear.
- Probation could not prevent access to the court if a complainant insisted that a petition be filed.
- Frank H. appeared at the initial intake conference without an attorney.
- At Frank H.’s first appearance before the Family Court judge, the court assigned counsel under County Law article 18-B.
- Through assigned counsel, Frank H. moved to vacate the petition and remit the matter to intake for de novo consideration, arguing that the absence of counsel at intake violated his constitutional right to counsel.
- The court held the fact-finding hearing in abeyance pending decision on the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether a juvenile delinquency intake conference under Family Court Act § 734 is a “critical stage” that triggers a constitutional right to counsel.
2. If counsel was required at intake, whether the proper remedy was vacatur of the petition and a return to intake for de novo consideration.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to vacate the petition and to remit the matter to intake for de novo consideration.
- The court held that the initial intake conference is not a “critical stage” of a juvenile delinquency proceeding for right-to-counsel purposes.
- Because counsel was assigned at Frank H.’s first appearance before the judge and before fact-finding, the case could proceed on the petition with counsel.

## Legal Principles

- The constitutional right to counsel attaches at stages of a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding where substantial rights may be affected and where the absence of counsel may result in meaningful prejudice.
- A probation intake conference designed for pre-petition screening and voluntary adjustment, without adjudication and without compulsory attendance, is not such a stage.
- When probation lacks authority to block a complainant from filing a petition, and the juvenile is provided counsel at the first court appearance before adjudicatory hearings, the Constitution is not violated by an uncounseled appearance at intake.
- Denial of counsel at a noncritical, pre-petition intake conference does not require dismissal or vacatur of a later-filed juvenile delinquency petition.

## Conclusion

In *In the Matter of Frank H.*, the New York Family Court (Richmond County) ruled that the probation-service intake conference in a juvenile delinquency matter functions as an informal, pre-petition screening and adjustment step rather than an adjudicatory proceeding, and therefore it is not a critical stage that requires appointed counsel under the Sixth Amendment; because Frank H. received assigned counsel at his first appearance before the judge and before fact-finding, the court denied his motion to vacate the petition and return the case to intake for a new consideration.


In the Matter of Frank H., 337 N.Y.S.2d 118 (1972)