 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hayward8/22/2005
Diana Hayward was charged as a juvenile and the juvenile court extended its jurisdiction beyond the date of her fact-finding hearing. But before her fact-finding hearing took place, Hayward turned 18 and was treated as an adult in a Kent Municipal Court case. Hayward moved to have the juvenile court decline jurisdiction. The court denied her motion. Hayward appeals, claiming that she was not a juvenile when she moved for declination; the court abused its discretion at the declination hearing; and her case should be remanded because the court failed to enter findings and conclusions. We affirm because the juvenile court properly retained jurisdiction after charging her as a juvenile, and Hayward cannot show prejudice resulting from the late filing of the findings and conclusions.
I.
On September 23, 2003, Diana Hayward was found driving a sports utility vehicle that had been stolen earlier in the day. Although she successfully fled the scene, Hayward eventually was arrested and charged with possessing stolen property in the first degree.
In anticipation of Hayward's 18th birthday on February 13, 2004, juvenile court extended its jurisdiction beyond the date set for her arraignment. At arraignment, the juvenile court extended its jurisdiction until August 13, 2004. Hayward was scheduled for a plea and disposition hearing, but she failed to appear and a warrant was issued. In July 2004, she was brought back to juvenile court, transferred from the Kent City jail where she was serving a sentence.
Hayward moved the juvenile court to decline jurisdiction. The juvenile court denied the motion. The court then found the evidence proved Hayward had committed the charged offense and concluded she was guilty of possession of stolen property in the first degree. Hayward appeals.
II.
Hayward first argues that she was not properly under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because she was not a juvenile at the time of the declination hearing. A 'juvenile' under RCW 13.40.020(14) is 'any individual who is under the chronological age of eighteen years and who has not been previously transferred to adult court pursuant to RCW 13.40.110 or who is otherwise under adult court jurisdiction.' Hayward argues that because she was on probation and under the supervision of Kent Municipal Court at the time of her declination hearing, she was 'otherwise under adult court jurisdiction' and thus, not a juvenile.
But in State v. Mora, our Supreme Court explained that the addition of the phrase 'otherwise under adult court jurisdiction' to the definition of 'juvenile' coordinated with the Legislature's addition of automatic decline provisions for violent offenses committed by juveniles of 16 and 17 years of age. The court further explained that the relevant statutes only contemplate 'two ways by which jurisdiction over a juvenile is transferred to an adult court: (a) either by the filing of specified charges which may automatically bring the juvenile under the jurisdiction of adult court or a court of limited jurisdiction, or (b) following a declination hearing by the juvenile court in which the court transfers the juvenile to adult court for adult criminal prosecution.'
Moreover, juvenile court jurisdiction is established at the time the information is filed, not at the time of the declination hearing. At the time the charges were filed against Hayward, she was under 18. The court then properly extended jurisdiction under RCW 13.40.300(1)(a) and extended jurisdiction again under RCW 13.40.300(2), (3). The second order extended jurisdiction beyond the date of her fact-finding hearing.
Hayward presents no authority tha
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|