D.S. v. State
2017 Ark. App. 485
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Juvenile D.S. was adjudicated delinquent for second-degree sexual assault and two counts of fourth-degree sexual assault and placed on probation through his 18th birthday.
- The court ordered a community-notification risk assessment; a later assessment (Sept. 26, 2016) recommended sex-offender registration.
- The State filed a motion to revoke probation and to require sex-offender registration; a revocation hearing and registration hearing were held Oct. 19, 2016.
- A licensed psychological examiner (Skip Hoggard) testified and his 15-page assessment was admitted.
- The circuit court ruled from the bench and entered an order finding by clear and convincing evidence that D.S. must register as a sex offender, citing the statutory factors.
- On appeal D.S. challenged only the registration order, arguing the court failed to make the statutorily required specific written findings on each subsection (e) factor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (D.S.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court properly ordered juvenile to register as a sex offender under Ark. Code § 9-27-356 | Court properly relied on the risk-assessment recommendation and testimony showing clear and convincing evidence for registration | Registration was clearly erroneous because the court did not make required specific written findings on each statutory factor | Registration order vacated for procedural defect; remanded for entry of written findings consistent with statute |
| Whether circuit court complied with § 9-27-356(f) duty to make written findings on each subsection (e) factor | Court’s order recited the statutory factors and relied on testimony and report, satisfying the requirement | Court failed to make individualized, specific written findings on each factor as required by statute | Court failed to make the required specific written findings; remand required for an order that addresses each factor individually |
Key Cases Cited
- W.J.S. v. State, 495 S.W.3d 649 (Ark. App. 2016) (holding that recitation of statutory factors without individualized written findings is insufficient under § 9-27-356 and remanding for compliance)