McGaughy v. StateMcGaughy v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Corbin
Appellant, Anthony Russell McGaughy, appeals the order of the Benton County Circuit Court denying his motion to transfer the charges against him to juvenile court. This interlocutory appeal is permitted by statute,
Appellant was charged in circuit court by information with some fourteen or fifteen crimes ranging from misdemeanor theft to felony aggravated robbery. The information alleged appellant and two juvenile accomplices engaged in a crime spree beginning on December 10, 1993, and continuing until January 4, 1994, in the course of which they armed themselves with a knife or pellet gun resembling an automatic pistol, approached victims in their vehicles, and stole their purses, money, and other personal property. Appеllant and his accomplices ended their crime spree by fleeing from law enforcement officers and engaging in a high-speed vehiсle chase followed by a foot chase. Thereafter, appellant turned himself in to law enforcement authorities. Appellant was born on March 21, 1976. He was therefore aged seventeen years when the alleged crimes occurred.
In its order, the trial court found that appellant was charged with fourteen crimes, many of which involved the use of violence or intrusion into the sanctity of the home or appurtenances thereto. The order further stated that appellant had no history of adjudicated offenses and that rehabilitatiоn in the juvenile system was improbable given appellant’s degree of mental maturity and his then-current age of eighteen years, which prevented him from being committed to the youth services center. See Bright v. State, 307 Ark. 250, 819 S.W.2d 7 (1991).
The first of appellant’s two arguments for reversal is that the trial cоurt did not consider all of the factors enumerated in
Initially, we note that appellant’s rеliance on Johnson and Bright is misplaced. Johnson merely acknowledged, after comparing aggravated robbery to murder, that the crimе of aggravated robbery could possibly be committed without the actual use of violence. As discussed below, however, the actual usе of violence was present in the instant robberies and aggravated robberies. Bright did not involve aggravated robbery; rather, it involved burglary and fеlony theft of property, crimes which this court stated involved the use of violence against property, though not against persons. Both Jоhnson and Bright were cases in which the circuit courts denied transfers to juvenile courts and we affirmed both decisions.
In deciding whether to transfer а case to juvenile court, the factors to be considered by the circuit court are “the seriousness of the alleged offense, whether violence was involved, and whether the alleged offense is part of a pattern of adjudicated offenses, along with the priоr history, character traits, mental maturity, and any other factors that reflect upon the juvenile’s prospects for rehabilitation.” Myers v. State, 317 Ark. 70, 72, 876 S.W.2d 246, 248 (1994) (citing
According to the criminal information, appellant was an accomplice to two aggravated robberies and two burglaries, all involving situations where aрpellant’s accomplices wore ski masks, were armed with deadly weapons or weapons that appeared to be dеadly, and demanded money from victims while in their vehicles, at least one of which was inside a garage. The information also alleged that аppellant acted as principal in four additional felonies, one of which was a robbery whereby appellant wore a ski mаsk and attempted to take the victim’s purse by force. While the testimony indicated appellant may not have obtained the purse, this court has held that a criminal information may provide a sufficient basis for a trial court’s decision on a transfer motion. Blevins v. State, 308 Ark. 613, 826 S.W.2d 265 (1992) (citing Walker v. State, 304 Ark. 393, 803 S.W.2d 502, reh’g denied, 304 Ark. 402-A, 805 S.W.2d 80 (1991)). Again, we note that the trial court need not give equal weight to each statutory factor. Pennington, 305 Ark. 312, 807 S.W.2d 660.
In this case, the trial court did not err in concluding the aggravated robberies were serious offenses involving the use of violence. It is obvious that violence is used when one wears a ski mask and tаkes money by force from a victim. Nor did the trial court fail to consider the other statutory factors. The order clearly recognized thаt appellant had no history of adjudicated offenses. The order also clearly stated that appellant’s prospects for rehabilitation were improbable given his age and the corresponding lack of a juvenile court’s ability to enforce any punishment. This court has considered a defendant’s age and corresponding lack of ability to be committed under juvenile jurisdiction an important factor supporting the denial of a transfer to juvenile court. Hogan v. State, 311 Ark. 262, 843 S.W.2d 830 (1992). Although there was countervailing evidence of appellаnt’s prospects for rehabilitation from numerous witnesses, including appellant’s probation officer, his high school principal and superintendent, the mother of one of his friends, his pastor, and his mother, we cannot say the circuit court was clearly erroneous in retaining jurisdiction since it is not required to give equal weight to each factor.
As his second argument for reversal, appellant contends the trial cоurt erred in considering factors other than those enumerated in
We find no error in the order denying the transfer and affirm.