280 P.3d 1144
Wash. Ct. App.2012Background
- Washington juvenile court may decline jurisdiction and transfer to adult court if Kent factors favor transfer by preponderance of the evidence.
- Declination is a jurisdictional determination, not sentencing; a juvenile must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before any sentence is imposed.
- Childress, age 15, was charged with second-degree rape in juvenile court for a November 12, 2009 incident at Cypress House.
- The State moved to decline jurisdiction; the probation department recommended decline; Childress opposed decline.
- At a hearing, the court applied eight Kent factors and declined jurisdiction; Childress sought reconsideration, which was denied.
- Childress was ultimately convicted in superior court and sentenced to 84 months to life; appeal challenged the declination process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Apprendi/Blakely require jury findings for declination? | Childress arguesApprendi requires jury-determined facts for declination. | State argues declination is a jurisdictional, not sentencing, determination not invoking Apprendi. | Declination is jurisdictional; Apprendi does not apply to declination proceedings. |
| Whether Ice limits Apprendi and supports non-jury declination decisions. | Childress contends Ice does not allow non-jury declination under Apprendi. | State relies on Ice to limit Apprendi’s reach to core jury-findings; declination remains non-sentencing. | Ice supports non-application of Apprendi to declination Proceedings. |
| Did prior Washington decisions (H.O., Hegney) control here after Ice? | Childress asserts Ice undermines H.O. and Hegney. | State maintains H.O. and Hegney remain good law; Ice aligns with those results. | Washington cases remain consistent; Apprendi does not apply to declination. |
| Does the waiver/declination framework implicate the jury-right or sentencing standards? | Childress claims declination decisions affect punishment and require jury-proof. | Declination merely selects forum; it does not impose punishment on its own. | Declination does not impose punishment; it is a forum-selection event. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966) (establishes eight Kent factors for juvenile transfer decisions)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing punishment must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007) (indeterminate sentences; facts exposing elevated term must be jury-found)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (guidelines sentencing facts must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (invalidates sentence based on judge-found enhancements)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (death-penalty aggravators found by judge violate jury-trial rights)
- Ice v. Oregon, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (limits Apprendi to core concerns; sentencing-concurrency distinctions)
- H.O. (State v. H.O.), 119 Wn. App. 549 (2003) (Apprendi/Blakely do not apply to juvenile declination in Washington)
- Andrews, 329 S.W.3d 369 (Mo. (2011)) (juvenile waiver not implicating Apprendi; transfer determines forum, not punishment)
- Villalon, 956 N.E.2d 697 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (waiver statute not implicating Apprendi core concerns)
- Miguel, 338 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2003) (Apprendi does not apply to transfer proceedings)