in Re Adrain Terell Johnson
335820
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 29, 2017Background
- Defendant Adrain Terell Johnson, age 15, charged with first-degree home invasion, conspiracy to commit first-degree home invasion, and three counts of armed robbery for an armed home invasion where victims (including a baby) were threatened and property stolen.
- Family Court conducted the juvenile waiver (MCL 712A.4(4)) two-phase process and found probable cause; proceeding to second-phase waiver hearing.
- Probation officer was the only witness at the second phase; testified about defendant’s prior delinquency, nonviolent defiance in detention, positive marijuana test on bond, and opined (without having offered services) that defendant lacked desire for rehabilitation.
- The court found the offenses extremely serious, that defendant was equally culpable with accomplices, and that waiver was in the best interests of defendant and the public.
- The Court of Appeals found the trial court erred in evaluating defendant’s programming history and the adequacy of juvenile dispositional options because no programming had been offered or implemented, making the court’s negative conclusions about benefit from juvenile services speculative.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the waiver order and remanded for further consideration consistent with its opinion, without directing a different outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether family court properly waived juvenile jurisdiction under MCL 712A.4(4) | Prosecution: waiver appropriate because offense extremely serious and juvenile’s record supports waiver | Johnson: waiver improper because court speculatively concluded he would not benefit from juvenile programming when none had been offered | Vacated remanded — waiver cannot stand because court clearly erred evaluating programming history and adequacy of juvenile options |
| Whether trial court gave proper weight to statutory factors (seriousness, culpability, prior record, programming, adequacy of juvenile options, dispositional options) | Prosecutor: court considered and properly weighed factors, giving greater weight to seriousness and prior record | Johnson: court improperly relied on seriousness while ignoring lack of programming evidence | Court found most factors (seriousness, culpability, prior record) supported waiver but reversed because errors on programming, adequacy, and dispositional options contaminated the decision |
| Whether probation officer’s testimony sufficed to show lack of rehabilitative potential | Prosecution relied on officer’s opinion that defendant had no desire to be rehabilitated | Defense: officer’s opinion unreliable because no services or assessments were offered; conclusions speculative | Court held officer’s unsupported opinion was inadequate to establish past willingness or futility of juvenile programming |
| Whether appellate court should remand or decide waiver outcome itself | Prosecution implicitly: affirm waiver | Defense: remand for proper consideration of programming/dispositional options | Court remanded for further consideration; did not instruct a specific result and declined to retain jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Fultz, 211 Mich. App. 299 (Mich. Ct. App.) (standard of review for waiver decision and abuse of discretion)
- People v. Petty, 469 Mich. 108 (Mich.) (courts need not mechanically recite statutory criteria; must explain reasoning in light of statutory factors)
- People v. Lane, 308 Mich. App. 38 (Mich. Ct. App.) (abuse of discretion standard and definition)
- Mitcham v. Detroit, 355 Mich. 182 (Mich.) (appellate briefing standards; issues inadequately argued may be deemed abandoned)