 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Beulah v. State12/13/2000
e written findings with respect to each factor. He cites no authority for his position, other than the statutory language itself.
We recently addressed this issue in Jongewaard v. State, 71 Ark. App. _____, _____ S.W.3d _____ (2000), where we held that "the trial court did not clearly err where the findings of fact rendered on appellant's motion to transfer did not explicitly detail the rulings on the ten factors contained in Ark. Code Ann. ยง 9-27-318 (Supp. 1999)." Here, as in Jongewaard, supra, the abstract fully supports the conclusion that the factors were considered by the trial court, and the fact that the court did not detail each of the ten factors in its order does not mean that it failed to consider every factor.
Finally, we note that included in his brief to this court is appellant's petition for writs of prohibition "forbidding the circuit court to try Beulah for capital murder for the killing of a fetus, and to seek the death penalty for such an offense." Rule 1-2(a)3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court provides that petitions for prohibition directed to circuit courts shall be filed in the supreme court. Appellant's petition was earlier submitted to the supreme court and denied by it in an order dated July 7, 2000. Accordingly, the petition is not properly before this court and therefore we do not address it.
Affirmed.
Jennings and Bird, JJ., agree.
|