Opinion
No. 68540
05-18-2016
IN THE MATTER OF: A. L., A MINOR. A. L., Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a juvenile court order certifying appellant A.L. to stand trial as an adult. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; William O. Voy, Judge.
A.L. claims the juvenile court erred by determining prosecutive merit supported the two charges for first-degree kidnapping because the State failed to show he had specific intent to kidnap.
Prosecutive merit is analogous to the grand jury indictment standard and requires a finding of probable cause to believe the minor committed the charged offenses. In the Matter of Seven Minors, 99 Nev. 427, 437, 664 P.2d 947, 953 (1983) disapproved of on other grounds by In the Matter of William S., 122 Nev. 432, 442 n.23, 132 P.3d 1015, 1021 n.23 (2006). "The finding of probable cause may be based on slight, even 'marginal' evidence because it does not involve a determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused." Sheriff, Washoe Cty. v. Hodes, 96 Nev. 184, 186, 606 P. 2d 178, 180 (1980) (internal citations omitted). The determination of probable cause "may be based on evidence taken from the petition, sworn investigative reports, witnesses' affidavits, police affidavits, or other informal but reliable evidence." In re Three Minors, 100 Nev. 414, 418, 684 P.2d 1121, 1124 (1984), disapproved of on other grounds by Matter of Williams S., 122 Nev. at 442 n.23, 132 P.3d at 1021 n.23.
Having reviewed the record and charges, we conclude there was prosecutive merit to support the charges.
Next, A.L. claims the juvenile court erred in its application of the transfer matrix set forth in Seven Minors. A.L. asserts the juvenile court did not thoroughly consider his subjective factors and, had the court properly considered them, retention would have been supported. He further asserts the court should have recognized his part in the crimes was not heinous and egregious. A.L. contends this, combined with his nonexistent delinquency record, supported retention, and the goal of public safety could have been achieved through treatment in the juvenile system.
Adult certification may be based on either the seriousness of the offenses or a juvenile's past adjudications alone; alternatively, in close cases, the juvenile court may consider a juvenile's personal subjective factors, in conjunction with other factors. In re William S., 122 Nev, at 440-41, 132 P.3d at 1021; Seven Minors, 99 Nev. at 434-35, 664 P.2d at 952. The court has "broad discretion in making discretionary certification decisions in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Seven Minors." In re William S., 122 Nev. at 442, 132 P.3d at 1021.
The juvenile court's written order indicates the court considered all three factors, including A.L.'s subjective factors. The court found discretionary certification was warranted based on the nature and seriousness of the offenses, the offenses were heinous and egregious, and the subjective factors did not outweigh the nature and seriousness of the offenses. The juvenile court further considered A.L. was a secondary actor in counts 1 through 10 and deleted the deadly weapon enhancement on all of the counts. Finally, the juvenile court found public safety would best be served by transferring A.L. to the adult system. The record indicates the juvenile court adequately considered the relevant factors and we cannot conclude its decision to grant the State's certification petition was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the juvenile court AFFIRMED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Silver cc: Hon. William O. Voy, District Judge, Family Court Division
Wright Stanish & Winckler
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk