Case Title: In re W.M.

Citation: 2006 VT 129

Docket Number: 2005-462

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-12-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re W.M. (2005-462)

2006 VT 129

[Filed 04-Dec-2006]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 129

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-462

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2006


  In re W.M.                           }         APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }         Bennington Family Court
                                       }
                                       }         DOCKET NOS. 111-9-05 BnJv and
                                                             701-7-05 BnCr

                                                 Trial Judge:  Nancy Corsones

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  This interlocutory appeal arises from the family court's
  decision to transfer a juvenile marijuana-possession case back to the
  district court in which charges were originally filed.  Because the family
  court did not have authority to transfer the case prior to a merits
  hearing, we reverse and remand.

       ¶  2.  The facts, which are undisputed, may be briefly summarized. 
  When juvenile W.M., age sixteen, arrived at the district court for her
  arraignment on a domestic assault charge, a sheriff's deputy searched her
  bag and found marijuana.  W.M. was later arraigned in the district court on
  a charge of knowingly possessing less than two ounces of marijuana.  18
  V.S.A. § 4230(a)(1).  W.M. then moved to transfer the possession case to
  juvenile court pursuant to 33 V.S.A. § 5505(c). The State did not oppose
  the motion, and it was granted without a hearing or findings.  See
  V.R.Cr.P. 47(b)(1).

       ¶  3.  At an initial hearing in family court, W.M. asserted that she
  lacked knowledge that the marijuana was in her bag and stated that she
  would deny the charges.  By written order later the same day, the family
  court transferred the case back to the district court.  The order stated:
  "sent back to Dist - Child on adult pro[bation] already - not admitting
  offense - not amenable to juv. pro. - under Kent, should go back . . . ."

       ¶  4.  W.M. timely filed a motion to reconsider the order.  The
  motion was denied.  A second motion for reconsideration was denied, and
  W.M. then moved the family court for permission to take an interlocutory
  appeal to this Court.  That motion was also denied.  We granted appellant's
  subsequent motion for interlocutory appeal, and this appeal followed.

       ¶  5.  W.M. first argues that the family court had no authority to
  transfer the case to the district court, except as provided by 33 V.S.A. §
  5527(c).  The State contends that the family court's transfer was proper in
  light of: (1) the district court's asserted abuse of discretion in
  transferring the case to family court initially, and (2) the family court's
  weighing of the factors announced in Kent v. United States,