Case Title: Ex Parte Anonymous

Citation: 466 So. 2d 81

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1984-12-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
466 So. 2d 81 (1984)
Ex parte ANONYMOUS.
(Re ANONYMOUS v. STATE of Alabama).
83-861.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
December 21, 1984.
Dewey W. Teague, Opelika, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and James B. Prude, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
ADAMS, Justice.
Defendant was arrested on October 16, 1983, and charged with burglary I, robbery I, and assault II. Two days later, four juvenile delinquency petitions were filed against him by the alleged victims. The district attorney of Lee County, Alabama, filed a motion to transfer proceedings from the juvenile court to the circuit court, and, after a hearing, the motion was granted. Defendant appealed from the transfer order, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the transfer on April 10, 1984, and subsequently overruled defendant's application for rehearing. In each instance, the Court of Criminal Appeals chose not to write an opinion.
We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in affirming the transfer of defendant from juvenile court to circuit court. We find that it did, and reverse its decision and remand the cause for another transfer hearing.
The procedural requirements for juvenile hearings are prescribed by Rule 24 of the Alabama Rules of Juvenile Procedure. These requirements were promulgated with the protection of the juvenile's due process rights in mind.
The first sentence of Rule 24 states that the hearing shall commence with the court's verifying that all necessary parties are present and ready to proceed. This verification is to be spread upon the record. There is, however, no evidence on the record showing that this was done. Next, the court (as per Rule 24) is required to explain several items to the parties:
In addition to the juvenile court's non-observance of Rule 24, it failed to adhere to the specific requirements of Code 1975, § 12-15-34(d). This section imposes a duty on the juvenile judge to consider evidence of six specific factors in its determination of whether to grant a transfer motion. These factors are:
Code 1975, § 12-15-34(d).
Pursuant to § 12-15-34(f), the transfer order must contain proof that each of these factors was considered by the court when rendering its decision. McKinney v. State, 404 So. 2d 639 (Ala.1981); Young v. State, 387 So. 2d 825 (Ala.1980). The court, in its transfer order, states:
In Brown v. State, 353 So. 2d 1384 (Ala. 1977), this Court held that a transfer order can be valid even if it merely restates the factors as they appear in the statute. However, the court below did not comply with this requirement. The last of the six factors mandates that the court consider the interests of the community as well as the interests of the child. Nowhere in the court's order does it state that the interests of the child were considered. Absent a statement of such a consideration, the transfer is invalid.
The procedures regarding the transfer of a juvenile's case to circuit court were not followed; therefore, the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON, SHORES, EMBRY and BEATTY, JJ., concur.