Rice v. StateRice v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Brown
AppeEant Zeronical Rice appeals the denial of his motion to transfer the criminal charges of aggravated robbеry and theft to juvenfie court. We affirm the trial court’s finding on the aggravated robbery charge but dismiss the theft charge for lack of jurisdiction in thе circuit court.
At the juvenile-transfer hearing, the prosecutor presented the testimony of Officer Jeffrey Norman of the Little Rock Police Department. Officer Norman testified that on September 5, 1995, Rice asked his brother, Tyrone Rice, to invite his friend, Steven Morris, to come over to his house. Morris used his 1994 Honda Elite moped as transportation. When Morris arrived, Rice pointed a sawed-off twelve-gauge shotgun at Morris and ordered him to give him the keys to his moped. Morris dropped the keys on the floor. Rice picked up thе keys and set his shotgun down briefly to gather some clothes before he left. While his back was turned, Morris grabbed the shotgun and ran toward the front door, dropping the shotgun as’ he escaped through the door. Morris contacted the Little Rock Police Department from a neighbor’s house and informed them about what had happened. He then watched Rice leave on his moped. When Rice was arrested on September 11, 1995, he confessed to Officer Norman that he had taken Morris’s moped at gun point. At the time, he was fifteen with а date of birth of September 11, 1979. Morris’s moped was never recovered.
Other testimony presented by the prosecutor at the juvenile-transfer hearing revealed that Rice had been implicated in two other offenses after his arrest for the aggravated robbery involving Morris. Officer Paul Childress of the Benton Police Department testified that he investigated an incident involving Rice, which occurred on December 8, 1995. According to the police officer, Rice and another person went to a residence in Benton аnd accused Greg James of being an informant for a drug task force. Rice beat James severely with a bottle, a television set, and his fists. James was treated at the hospital for his injuries.
Officer Childress further stated that there was another felony bench warrant for Rice stemming from an incident that occurred on December 23, 1995. According to Officer Childress, Rice and another person approached Jonathan Caple as he was leaving a bar in Benton and questioned him about an incident involving Rice and Caple’s brother. While they were talking, Rice took a semiautomatic handgun, put a round in the chamber, and pointed the gun at Caple’s head. Rice told Cаple to drop all of his money. Caple escaped by retreating back into the bar.
The only testimony presented by Rice аt the juvenile-transfer hearing was that of a teacher, Sylvia Carter, from whom Rice was receiving instruction in an effort to obtain his GED. Ms. Cartеr testified that Rice was cooperative and polite. She explained that Rice was doing well in his classes except for math which frustrated him.
Following the hearing, the motion to transfer was denied.
For his points on appeal, Pice contends that the trial court should have granted the motion to transfer to juvеnile court because there was a high likelihood of rehabilitation and the State presented no countervailing proof regarding his potential for rehabilitation. Arkansas Code Ann. § 9-27-318 (Supp. 1995), provides the criteria for a motion to transfer to juvenile court:
(e) In making the decision to retain jurisdiction or to transfer the case, the court shall consider the following factors:
(1) The seriousness оf the offense, and whether violence was employed by the juvenile in the commission of the offense;
(2) Whether the offense is pаrt of a repetitive pattern of adjudicated offenses which would lead to the determination that the juvenile is beyond rehabilitation under existing rehabilitation programs, as evidenced by past efforts to treat and rehabilitate the juvenile and the response to such efforts; and
(3) The prior history, character traits, mental maturity, and any other factorwhich reflects upon the juvenile’s prоspects for rehabilitation.
(f) Upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence that a juvenile should be tried as an adult, the court shаll enter an order to that effect.
We dispense with Rice’s rehabilitation argument by focusing on his age. At this writing, he is eighteen, and his potentiаl for rehabilitation within the juvenile system is nil. State law and our cases have made it clear that the initial commitment to the State Division оf Youth Services cannot commence after the eighteenth birthday of the youth.
Rice is beyond the age when he can be rehabilitated in the juvenile justice system. Furthermore, he confessed to a crime, aggravated robbеry, that is clearly serious and clearly involves the use of violence. The evidence that Rice should be tried as an adult on this charge was clear and convincing.
Though Rice did not raise the issue, we conclude that the circuit court does not have jurisdiction оver the theft charge. State law provides that if a juvenile is fourteen or fifteen at the time the delinquent act occurs, the prоsecuting attorney may charge him with certain enumerated crimes, including aggravated robbery.
Affirmed as modified.