Opinion
No. 57359.
09-14-2011
In the Matter of JASON B., a Minor. Jason B., Appellant, v. The State of Nevada, Respondent.
Bush & Levy, LLC Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
Bush & Levy, LLC
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a juvenile court order certifying appellant Jason B. to stand trial as an adult. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; William O. Voy, Judge.
Jason contends that the juvenile court erred by certifying him for criminal proceedings as an adult without specifically considering his role in the charged offenses. This contention is belied by the record because the juvenile court stated, both at the certification hearing and in its certification order, that it considered Jason's role in the charged offenses when determining that certification was warranted. Accordingly, we conclude that this contention lacks merit.
Jason also alleges that the juvenile court erred by concluding that the State's showing of prosecutive merit was dispositive of his role in the offenses. This appears to be a contention that the juvenile court did not consider Jason's role in the offense as it separately related to prosecutive merit and the certification decision. This contention is also belied by the record. At the hearing the juvenile court made a finding of prosecutive merit and a separate finding that, considering Jason's role in the offense and the other relevant factors, certification was warranted. The certification order also makes separate findings regarding prosecutive merit and Jason's role in the offense as it bore on the certification determination. Accordingly, we conclude that this assertion lacks merit.
Finally, we decline, at this time, Jason's request that we require the juvenile court to make specific factual findings, in addition to the facts taken from the police report, regarding the juvenile's role in the charged offenses. See In re Three Minors, 100 Nev. 414, 417, 684 P.2d 1121, 1123 (1984) (juvenile court need not make “conventional findings of fact” but must give a statement of reasons in support of certification that demonstrates that a full investigation has been completed), disapproved of on other grounds by Matter of William S., 122 Nev. 432, 442 n. 23, 132 P.3d 1015, 1021 n. 23 (2006) : see also Lewis v. State, 86 Nev. 889, 894, 478 P.2d 168, 171 (1970) and Kline v. State, 86 Nev. 59, 61, 464 P.2d 460, 462 (1970) (discussing the sufficiency of written and oral pronouncements in support of certification determinations). Jason also requests that we require that the juvenile's role in a charged offense be examined through the lens of recent scientific research and United States Supreme Court jurisprudence discussing the decreased culpability of juvenile—as compared to adult—offenders. See Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010) ; Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). These cases examine decreased juvenile culpability in the context of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and we decline to extend the reasoning employed therein to certification determinations. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the juvenile court AFFIRMED.