State v. A.G., 2011 Ark. 244

A.G. was charged by felony information (May 18, 2009) with arson and manslaughter arising from a June 19, 2008 fire that killed his grandmother.
Forensic evaluation dated December 18, 2009 concluded A.G. had mood/behavior disorders but was competent to stand trial and could conform conduct to the law.
On September 16, 2010, A.G., then 19, moved to transfer his case to the juvenile court; the circuit court held a transfer hearing.
The State presented police testimony about the fire, prior misconduct, and A.G.’s behavioral history obtained from relatives and institutional records.
On September 27, 2010, the circuit court granted the transfer to the juvenile division, listing ten factual/characterization findings favoring rehabilitation.
The State appealed the transfer order, arguing its right to appeal is derived from a statute (9-27-318) and not Rule 3; the State sought review under the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure-Criminal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the State’s appeal proper under Rule 3 or 9-27-318?	State relies on 9-27-318 to permit appeal by ‘any party’.	Majority holds Rule 3 governs State appeals; transfer order not among Rule 3’s listed interlocutory appeals.	State’s appeal dismissed.
Are Rule 3 and 9-27-318 compatible or in conflict?	Rule 3 and 9-27-318 can be harmonized; the State’s right to appeal exists under both.	Rule 3 and section 9-27-318 conflict; rules remain supreme, disfavoring the State’s method.	They are incompatible as construed; but the appeal is nonetheless dismissed because Rule 3 governs.
Is the transfer order an interlocutory or final order for purposes of appeal?	Transfer order may be final under 9-27-318; C.H. and Thomas support immediate direct appeal.	Under current interpretation, the order is not a proper interlocutory appeal under Rule 3; it is dismissed.	The appeal was dismissed on Rule 3 grounds.

State v. Nichols, 364 Ark. 1, 216 S.W.3d 114 (2005) (state appeal subject-matter jurisdiction concerns)
K.H., 2010 Ark. 172, 368 S.W.3d 46 (2010) (distinguishes criminal defendant vs. State appeals)
State v. Wilmoth, 369 Ark. 346, 255 S.W.3d 419 (2007) (distinguishes State appeals in criminal matters)
Thomas v. State, 345 Ark. 236, 45 S.W.3d 818 (2001) (historical right of appeal from transfer orders)
C.H. v. State, 2010 Ark. 279, 365 S.W.3d 879 (2010) (jurisdictional transfer decisions; State’s proper remedy is appeal)
Beck v. State, 317 Ark. 154, 876 S.W.2d 561 (1994) (interlocutory appeals in juvenile-transfer context)
Hamilton v. State, 320 Ark. 346, 896 S.W.2d 877 (1995) (interlocutory appeal of transfer orders recognized)
Shoemate v. State, 339 Ark. 403, 5 S.W.3d 446 (1999) (statutory vs. rule conflict resolution; rules prevail)
Hill v. State, 318 Ark. 408, 887 S.W.2d 275 (1994) (statutory compatibility with procedural rules)
Davis v. State, 350 Ark. 22, 86 S.W.3d 872 (2002) (interlocutory appeals in criminal prosecutions)