Title: Oglesby v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Mike Dane OGLESBY v. STATE of Arkansas

96-1244                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered June 23, 1997


1.   Juveniles -- ruling on motion to transfer -- decision to try
     juvenile as adult must be supported by clear and convincing
     evidence. -- In ruling upon a motion to transfer, a court is
     not required to give equal weight to each of the factors
     enunciated in Ark. Code Ann.  9-27-318 (e); according to Ark.
     Code Ann.  9-27-318(f) (Supp. 1995), a trial court decision
     to try a juvenile as an adult must be supported by clear and
     convincing evidence; a trial court's decision will not be
     overturned unless it is clearly erroneous.

2.   Juveniles -- transfer to juvenile court -- movant bears burden
     of proving transfer warranted. -- It is the movant's burden to
     prove that a transfer to juvenile court is warranted.

3.   Juveniles -- defense offered no evidence that motion to
     transfer was warranted -- trial court's ruling not clearly
     erroneous. -- Where the defense conceded that the offense was
     serious but claimed that the denial of the motion to transfer
     was improper because the offense was not violent as well, yet
     offered no evidence to prove that the motion to transfer was
     warranted, the trial court's denial of the motion to transfer
     was not clearly erroneous.  

4.   Juveniles -- transfer to juvenile court -- age of juvenile
     permissible factor to evaluate when determining whether
     transfer is proper. -- The age of the juvenile is a
     permissible factor to evaluate when determining whether a
     transfer to juvenile court is proper. 

5.   Juveniles -- transfer to juvenile court -- denial supported by
     factors considered -- denial was not clearly erroneous. --
     Based on the State's argument that appellant had turned
     eighteen and was not eligible for juvenile rehabilitative
     programs and upon the seriousness of a Class B felony, the
     supreme court could not say that the denial of transfer to
     juvenile court was clearly erroneous. 


     Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; Morris Thompson, Judge;
affirmed.
     Hilburn, Calhoon, Harper, Pruniski & Calhoon, Ltd., by: Bruce
D. Eddy, for appellant. 
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Kent G. Holt, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.


     W.H."Dub" Arnold, Chief Justice.
     Appellant, Mike Dane Ogelsby, appeals the order of the Pulaski
County Circuit Court, denying transfer of his case to juvenile
court.  The interlocutory appeal is proper pursuant to Ark. Code
Ann.  9-27-318(h) (Supp. 1995).  Jurisdiction is properly in this
Court pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(11).  We find no error
and affirm.
     Ogelsby was arrested on April 23, 1996.  A felony information
was filed on June 19, 1996, charging Ogelsby with residential
burglary, a Class B felony, and theft of property, a Class A
misdemeanor.  At the time of the arrest, Ogelsby was seventeen
years old.  Oglesby turned eighteen on August 3, 1996.  
     On August 5, 1996, Ogelsby entered a plea of not guilty.  On
August 26, 1996, an omnibus hearing was held on Oglesby's motion to
transfer the matter to juvenile court.  The motion was denied based
upon the seriousness of the offense and the age of the defendant. 
      Ark. Code Ann.  9-27-318(e)(Supp. 1995) sets forth statutory
factors that a trial court must evaluate when ruling upon a motion
to transfer a matter to juvenile court.   Specifically,  9-27-318
provides:
     (e) In making the decision to retain jurisdiction or to
     transfer the case, the court shall consider the following
     factors:

     (1) The seriousness of the offense, and whether violence
     was employed by the juvenile in the commission of the
     offense;

     (2) Whether the offense is part of a repetitive pattern
     of adjudicated offenses which would lead to the
     determination that the juvenile is beyond rehabilitation
     under existing rehabilitation programs, as evidenced by
     past efforts to treat and rehabilitate the juvenile and
     the response to such efforts; and

     (3) The prior history, character traits, mental maturity,
     and any other factor which reflects upon the juvenile's
     prospects for rehabilitation.

     (f) Upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence that
     a juvenile should be tried as an adult, the court shall
     enter an order to that effect.
     Oglesby contends that the trial court erred in denying his
motion to transfer based solely upon the finding that the crime was
serious; he argues that pursuant to the statute, a crime must be
both serious and violent in order to justify denial of a motion to
transfer.
     In ruling upon a motion to transfer, a court is not required
to give equal weight to each of the factors enunciated in Ark. Code
Ann.  9-27-318 (e).  Brooks v. State,  326 Ark. 201, 929 S.W.2d 160 (1996); Booker v. State, 324 Ark. 468, 922 S.W.2d 337 (1996);
Sebastian v. State, 318 Ark. 494,