State v. D.S., 2011 Ark. 45

State appeals the circuit judge's sua sponte dismissal of D.S.'s delinquency petition; the State asks this court to issue certiorari and reinstate the charge.
Around December 24, 2009, in Lowell, D.S. allegedly threatened his mother and was charged in juvenile court with domestic assault in the third degree.
Arraignment occurred December 29, 2009; D.S. pleaded not guilty; adjudication date set for March 8, 2010; judge questioned pre-adjudication release and mother’s custody.
Probation officer Pursley testified mother would take D.S. home; the judge immediately dismissed the case and discharged the parties.
An arraignment order dismissing the case was entered February 4, 2010; the State filed a petition for certiorari seeking reinstatement of the charge.
The majority holds that the circuit judge acted without subject-matter jurisdiction by usurping prosecutorial authority, thereby warranting vacatur and reinstatement of the charge on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court lacked authorization to dismiss the delinquency petition	State argues dismissal violated separation of powers and usurped prosecutorial duties.	D.S. contends there was no jurisdictional defect; dismissal was within the court's authority to manage proceedings.	Yes; dismissal was an excess of authority, violating separation of powers.
Whether certiorari was proper remedy or Rule 3 appeal should apply	State contends certiorari is appropriate when jurisdictional issues arise.	D.S. argues Rule 3 appeal governs juvenile dismissals and preservation; this issue was not preserved.	Certiorari appropriate, beyond Rule 3 appeal framework.
Whether amendment/dismissal of charges by the court usurps prosecutorial duties under Amendment 21 and juvenile code	State relies on separation-of-powers to show executive authority to file charges was violated by court dismissal.	D.S. argues no exclusive dismissal authority issue; court action did not infringe constitutional duties	Court's sua sponte dismissal usurped prosecutorial authority and violated separation of powers.

State v. Nichols, 364 Ark. 1 (2005) (requires assessment of subject-matter jurisdiction in appeals)
State v. Boyette, 362 Ark. 27 (2005) (treating a jurisdictional challenge as certiorari when appropriate)
State v. Markham, 359 Ark. 126 (2004) (certiorari may reverse where trial court acted without jurisdiction)
Hill v. State, 306 Ark. 375 (1991) (trial court cannot amend a charge over state objection; separation-of-powers concern)
Vasquez-Aerreola, 327 Ark. 617 (1997) (dismissal over state's objection violated separation of powers)
Murphy, 315 Ark. 68 (1993) (court missteps in dismissing charges over state objection breach separation of powers)
Watson, 307 Ark. 333 (1991) (preliminary dismissal based on proffer of facts did not negate jurisdiction)