Guy v. StateGuy v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Corbin
Lead Opinion
Aрpellant, Courtney Carnell Guy, appeals the order of the Garland County Circuit Court denying his motion to transfer his case to juvenile court. This interlocutory appeal is authorized by statute,
Consistent with the discretion given in
Appellant moved to transfer his case to juvenile court, and the circuit court hеld a hearing on the motion. Appellant presented no evidence or witnesses in support of his motion. The state called a single witness, Sharon Smith, a juvenile court intakе officer who was familiar with appellant.
Smith testified that appellant had two prior adjudications in the juvenile system. In February 1992, appellant was charged with theft of property valued at less than $200.00; he was sentenced to a suspended term of ten days in jail, placed on probation, assessed costs, and ordered to twenty-five hours of community service. Appellant was discharged from that probation in September 1992. In February 1995, appellant was charged with criminal trespass; he was again given probation, assessed costs, and ordered to twenty-five hours community service. Smith stated that, according to her files, appellant had not yet completed the community servicе requirement.
Smith also testified, based on her experience, as to the possible punishments applicable to appellant’s current case. According to Smith, jail was not a viable option because Garland County did not have a juvenile detention facility. Smith stated that, if appellant were transferred to a juvenile detention facility in another county, the maximum time appellant would serve would be ninety days. Smith also mentioned the training school, but stated appellant would only be there for a short timе also. The only long-term program of which Smith was aware was the serious offender program; she could not guarantee appellant would be accepted in that program if adjudicated delinquent on these charges, although she could recommend that program. Finally, Smith testified that, while appellant could remain under a juvenile сourt’s jurisdiction until aged twenty-one years, he could not be held in a juvenile facility past his eighteenth birthday on September 26, 1996.
On cross-examination, Smith opined that appellаnt’s previous adjudications were not for serious crimes. She also stated that, in addition to jail, the juvenile system had other options for appellant that had not yet beеn offered to him.
After the hearing, the trial court took the motion under advisement and later entered an order denying the motion. In deciding whether to transfer a case to juvеnile court, the factors to be considered by the circuit court are the seriousness of the alleged offense and whether violence was involved, whether the alleged offense is part of a pattern of adjudicated offenses, and the prior history, character traits, mental maturity, and any other factors that reflect upon thе juvenile’s prospects for rehabilitation. McGaughy v. State, 321 Ark. 537, 906 S.W.2d 671 (1995) (citing Myers v. State, 317 Ark. 70, 876 S.W.2d 246 (1994) and
Appellant does not seriously dispute that he was charged with serious offenses and that violence was involved, but contends that the trial court erred in failing to consider the remaining statutory factors. Specifically, appellant argues that because he had two priоr adjudications for which he had only received probation, there were other punishments available to him within the juvenile system, and therefore it could not be said that he had little or no prospects for rehabilitation. Appellant contends he met his burden as the moving party through Smith’s testimony.
Appellant’s argument is without merit. This court has repeatеdly held that the use of violence in committing a serious offense is a factor sufficient in and of itself for a circuit court to retain jurisdiction of a juvenile. Holland v. State, 311 Ark. 494, 844 S.W.2d 943 (1993). The trial court’s order specifically found that the charges stemmed from a “drive-by” shooting in a residential neighborhood, that the charges were serious in nature, two of which were Class B felonies with a punishment range of five to twenty years each, and that violence was employed in the firing of a total of six .380-caliber rounds toward an individual and residence. It is of no consequence that appellant may or may not have personally used a weapon, as his association with the use of a weapon in the cоurse of the crimes is sufficient to satisfy the violence criterion. Collins v. State, 322 Ark. 161, 908 S.W.2d 80 (1995) (citing Walter v. State, 317 Ark. 274, 878 S.W.2d 374 (1994)). Furthermore, no violence beyond that necessary to commit the offense charged is neсessary. Cole, 323 Ark. 136, 913 S.W.2d 779. It is not apparent that the trial court failed to consider the remaining statutory factors. The order made findings with respect to appellant’s age аnd education level as well as his prior adjudications and punishments.
The circuit court’s order retaining jurisdiction is affirmed.
Dudley, Newbern, and Glaze, JJ., concur.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring. This case is a companion appеal to one we handed down on February 19, 1996, Macon v. State, 323 Ark. 498, 915 S.W.2d 273, and involves identical facts and contentions. There is, however, a difference in the two juveniles’ ages. That diffеrence is what prompts my concurring opinion.
In Macon, we rejected the seventeen-year-old juvenile’s argument that the trial court had failed to consider factors (2) and (3) of
The Mаcon decision is unquestionably controlling here, because juvenile Courtney Guy’s actions and offenses are the same as Macon’s, and therefore support denial of his motion to transfer under