 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Beulah v. State12/13/2000
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
AFFIRMED
This is a criminal case in which the appellant, Lonnie Beulah, has filed an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's refusal to transfer the case to juvenile court. Appellant was charged, along with other persons, with the offenses of capital murder and first-degree battery. He was fifteen years old at the time of the offenses, which arose from the beating of a pregnant woman that resulted in the death of her unborn child. For his point of appeal, appellant contends that the circuit court erred in refusing to transfer the case to juvenile court because the court did not make written findings with respect to each of the statutory factors that are to be considered in deciding whether to transfer. We find no error and affirm the trial court's decision to retain jurisdiction.
Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-318(g) (Supp. 1999), provides:
(g) In making the decision to retain jurisdiction or to transfer the case, the court shall make written findings and consider all of the following factors:
(1) The seriousness of the alleged offense and whether the protection of society requires prosecution as an extended juvenile jurisdiction offender or in circuit court;
(2) Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated, or willful manner;
(3) Whether the offense was against a person or property, with greater weight being given to offenses against persons, especially if personal injury resulted;
(4) The culpability of the juvenile, including the level of planning and participation in the alleged offense;
(5) The previous history of the juvenile, including whether the juvenile had been adjudicated a juvenile offender and, if so, whether the offenses were against persons or property, and any other previous history of antisocial behavior or patterns of physical violence;
(6) The sophistication or maturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration of the juvenile's home, environment, emotional attitude, pattern of living, or desire to be treated as an adult;
(7) Whether there are facilities or programs available to the court which are likely to rehabilitate the juvenile prior to the expiration of the court's jurisdiction;
(8) Whether the juvenile acted alone or was part of a group in the commission of the alleged offense;
(9) Written reports and other materials relating to the juvenile's mental, physical, educational, and social history; and
(10) Any other factors deemed relevant by the court.
We will not reverse a trial court's decision to retain jurisdiction unless it is clearly erroneous. Rhodes v. State, 332 Ark. 516, 967 S.W.2d 550 (1998); Jongewaard v. State, 71 Ark. App. _____, ____ S.W.3d ____ (2000).
Here, appellant presented the testimony of several persons who were familiar with him and who testified in essence that he was a good kid and that he would be a good candidate for rehabilitation. However, the homicide detective testified for the State that he investigated the events that occurred on August 26, 1999; that he was notified of a home intrusion robbery around midnight; and that shortly after he and other officers arrived on the scene, they received word that one of the victims was nine months pregnant and had lost her child. He stated that they obtained information that the pregnant woman had been returning home with her former boyfriend, Erik Bullock, who was also the father of the unborn child, and with her five-year-old son; that they entered Bullock's apartment and three black males grabbed them and took B
Page 1 2 3 Arkansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|