Austin v. State
515 S.W.3d 633
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Appellant Brian D. Austin (born 2000) was charged in Pulaski County Circuit Court with aggravated robbery and first‑degree battery arising from two robberies on Jan. 31 and Feb. 1, 2016.
- Victim Edward Avery was shot after two males approached his car; Avery later identified G.S. as the shooter and Austin as the lookout after seeing televised interviews of the suspects. A second victim, Luis Reyes, was robbed and his car taken; Reyes later identified Austin and G.S.; Austin admitted involvement in that robbery.
- Austin had some juvenile history (a criminal trespass adjudication and truancy) and had been on probation in 2013; testimony described family disruption and counseling after his mother’s death; juvenile‑court services were available.
- The public defender moved to transfer the cases to the juvenile division under Ark. Code Ann. § 9‑27‑318; the circuit court held a transfer hearing, denied the motion from the bench, and entered written findings; Austin appealed the denial.
- The transfer statute requires the moving party to prove by clear and convincing evidence that transfer to juvenile court is appropriate and specifies ten factors the court must consider; appellate review is for clear error.
Issues
| Issue | Austin's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court clearly erred in denying the motion to transfer to juvenile court | Austin argued the court should have transferred the case to juvenile division (he met burden) | The State argued the offenses were serious, violent, and against persons, weighing against transfer | Denial affirmed; court not clearly erroneous — seriousness, protection of society, and participation justified keeping the case in criminal division |
| Whether the trial court complied with § 9‑27‑318 by considering required factors | Austin argued the court’s findings were insufficient or misweighed the statutory factors | The State argued the court considered all statutory factors and properly exercised discretion in weighting them | Court complied: made written findings on all factors and permissibly weighed them; appellate court will not substitute its judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- R.W.G. v. State, 444 S.W.3d 376 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (defines clear‑and‑convincing standard and standard of review for transfer determinations)
- Neal v. State, 378 S.W.3d 634 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (court need not give equal weight to each statutory transfer factor and may rely on any factor it deems appropriate)