Opinion ID: 2278146
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Analysis of Andrews' Certification by the Juvenile Division

Text: Section 211.031 gives exclusive original jurisdiction to the juvenile justice system over all children under the age of 17. However, § 211.071.1 allows the juvenile division to hold a hearing and dismiss at its discretion any case that involves a child between the age of 12 and 17 who is alleged to have committed a felony. If the child is alleged to have committed first degree murder or one of the other serious crimes listed in § 211.071.1, then the hearing is mandatory. While the juvenile division has discretion in making the decision as to whether to certify the child, it must analyze ten factors listed in § 211.071.6 and set out its reasons for certifying the juvenile in a judgment. The effect of certifying a juvenile is to transfer jurisdiction over that individual's case to a court of general jurisdiction and to allow the child to be prosecuted as an adult under the general law. § 211.071, RSMo 2000. Andrews argues that this certification in effect is a sentence enhancement. He argues that certification increases the punishment placed on the child for committing a felony because the juvenile system only maintains jurisdiction until the child is 21 years old. § 211.041, RSMo 2000. This places an upper limit on the length of sentence that the juvenile division can impose on a child. In Andrews' case, he claims that his certification increased his sentence for first degree murder from six years to life without parole. He asserts that because the juvenile division considered the ten factors set out in § 211.071.6 in determining whether to certify his case, then, these ten factors must be determined by a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt pursuant to Apprendi. [2] In Apprendi, the United States Supreme Court held that [o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. The Court stated that this analysis applied to any fact that expose[s] the defendant to a greater punishment than that authorized by the jury's verdict. Id. at 494, 120 S.Ct. 2348. Apprendi limited a trial court from sentencing a criminal defendant to a penalty that exceeds the statutory maximum sentence based on any fact not determined by a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 482-83, 120 S.Ct. 2348. Apprendi, however, did not make it impermissible for a court to exercise its discretion in imposition of a judgment within the range of sentence provided by statute. Id. at 481, 120 S.Ct. 2348. The juvenile division's consideration of the statutorily defined criteria in determining whether it should retain jurisdiction over a juvenile is not the type of factual determination that was understood to be within the jury's domain by the framers of the Bill of Rights and, therefore, is not controlled by Apprendi and its progeny. In fact, the determination of those criteria does not increase the statutory maximum punishment the juvenile will face; it only determines which court has final jurisdiction over the juvenile. The statutory maximum punishment is established by statutes found in the criminal code, not by a juvenile division in a certification proceeding. The United States Supreme Court most recently articulated the limited nature of the Apprendi decision in Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160, 129 S.Ct. 711, 172 L.Ed.2d 517 (2009). The Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as interpreted in Apprendi, did not apply to findings of fact required under state law as a predicate to imposing consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences on an offender. Id. at 714-15. In reaching this holding, the Court explained that the holdings of Apprendi and its progeny were based on the historic jury function of deciding whether the State has proved each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and that the Court had not extended these holdings beyond the offense-specific context of those cases: Those decisions are rooted in the historic jury functiondetermining whether the prosecution has proved each element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. They hold that it is within the jury's province to determine any fact (other than the existence of a prior conviction) that increases the maximum punishment authorized for a particular offense. Thus far, the Court has not extended the Apprendi and Blakely [ v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004)] line of decisions beyond the offense-specific context that supplied the historic grounding for the decisions. Id. at 714. The Court noted that application of Apprendi's rule to other contexts must be consistent with the longstanding common-law practice. Id. at 717 (quoting Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 281, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007)). The rule's animating principle is the preservation of the jury's historic role as the bulwark between the State and the accused at the trial for an alleged offense. Id. In determining whether the legislature has encroached on the jury's traditional domain given it by the Sixth Amendment, the Court considers whether the finding of a particular fact was understood as within `the domain of the jury . . . by those who framed the Bills of Rights.' Id. (quoting Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 557, 122 S.Ct. 2406, 153 L.Ed.2d 524 (2002) (plurality opinion)). In undertaking this inquiry, the Court noted that it must remain cognizant that administration of a discrete criminal justice system is among the basic sovereign prerogatives States retain. Ice, 129 S.Ct. at 717. Because the decision to impose sentences consecutively is not within the jury function that `extends down centuries into the common law,' the Court held that the rule in Apprendi did not apply. Id. (quoting Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 477, 120 S.Ct. 2348). The Court also noted that it did not want to extend the holding in Apprendi beyond its constitutional mooring by stating that: There is no encroachment here by the judge upon facts historically found by the jury, nor any threat to the jury's domain as a bulwark at trial between the State and the accused. Instead, the defendantwho historically may have faced consecutive sentences by default has been granted by some modern legislatures statutory protections meant to temper the harshness of the historical practice. Id. at 718. The Court noted that the scope of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is delineated by the historical role of the jury at common law and that it does not attach to every contemporary state law that requires predicate findings of fact: [a]s we have described, the scope of the constitutional jury right must be informed by the historical role of the jury at common law. It is therefore not the case that, as [defendant] suggests, the federal constitutional right attaches to every contemporary state-law `entitlement' to predicate findings. Id. at 718 (internal citations omitted). The Court's decision to limit Apprendi to what was necessary to protect the core concerns of the Sixth Amendment also was influenced by the respect that must be given the States' sovereign interest in administering their criminal justice systems: States' interest in development of their penal systems, and their historic dominion in this area, also counsel against the extension of Apprendi that [defendant] requests. Beyond question, the authority of States over the administration of their criminal justice systems lies at the core of their sovereign status. We long recognized the role of the States as laboratories for devising solutions to difficult legal problems. This Court should not diminish that role absent impelling reason to do so. Id. at 718-19 (internal citations omitted). [3] The creation of juvenile codes and the placing of juvenile offenders within the exclusive jurisdiction of juvenile divisions is a relatively modern legislative development. See Hidalgo v. State, 983 S.W.2d 746, 750 n. 8 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (noting that the first juvenile court was created in Illinois in 1899 and that by 1925 all but two states had juvenile systems.) The juvenile justice system that exists today certainly was not known when the Bill of Rights was adopted. At that time in our history, juvenile offenders were treated no differently from adult offenders and were prosecuted in courts of general jurisdiction. All states rightfully have adopted some type of juvenile justice system that precludes criminal prosecution of certain juveniles but allows for the relinquishment of juvenile-certification proceedings. The United States Supreme Court has held that while certain rights enumerated within the Bill of Rights apply to juvenile adjudications, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial does not. See In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (applying various due process rights to juvenile proceedings including notice of charges, right to counsel, right of confrontation and cross-examination, and privilege against self-incrimination); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) (proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt standard applies to delinquency proceedings); Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 95 S.Ct. 1779, 44 L.Ed.2d 346 (1975) (double jeopardy protection applies to delinquency proceedings); but see McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 545, 91 S.Ct. 1976, 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971) (holding that a trial by jury is not constitutionally required for juvenile court adjudications). The courts in every jurisdiction that have juvenile-certification statutes similar to Missouri's and that have considered this issue have concluded that Apprendi 's rule does not apply to juvenile transfer or certification proceedings and that there is no constitutional right to a jury determination respecting the transfer of a juvenile's case to a court of general jurisdiction. State v. Rudy B., 149 N.M. 22, 243 P.3d 726 (2010) ( Apprendi does not apply to the evidentiary hearing to determine whether a juvenile adjudicate as a youthful offender should be sentenced as a juvenile or as an adult); see also State v. Jones, 273 Kan. 756, 47 P.3d 783, 798 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 980, 123 S.Ct. 444, 154 L.Ed.2d 341 (2002) ( Apprendi does not apply to juvenile waiver hearings because they only determine which system will be appropriate for a juvenile offender.); Gonzales v. Tafoya, 515 F.3d 1097, 1112 (10th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 211, 172 L.Ed.2d 156 (2008); United States v. Miguel, 338 F.3d 995, 1004 (9th Cir.2003) ( Apprendi does not require that a jury find the facts that allow the transfer to district court. The transfer proceeding establishes the district court's jurisdiction over defendant); United States v. Juvenile, 228 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2000) (rejecting the claim that the transfer of a juvenile to an adult court increases punishment and holding that it merely establishes a basis for district court jurisdiction) (internal quotations omitted); People v. Beltran, 327 Ill.App.3d 685, 262 Ill. Dec. 463, 765 N.E.2d 1071, 1075-76 (2002) (concluding that Apprendi does not apply to a decision to prosecute the defendant as an adult because a transfer hearing is dispositional, not adjudicatory); Caldwell v. Commonwealth, 133 S.W.3d 445, 452-53 (Ky.2004) (adopting the jurisdiction argument); State v. Rodriguez, 205 Ariz. 392, 71 P.3d 919, 927-28 (Ariz.Ct.App. 2003) (holding that a juvenile transfer statute is not a sentence enhancement scheme and, therefore, does not implicate Apprendi . . . [because it] does not subject [a] juvenile to enhanced punishment; it subjects the juvenile to the adult criminal justice system.); In re Welfare of J.C.P., 716 N.W.2d 664, 668 (Minn.App.2006); State v. Kalmakoff, 122 P.3d 224, 227 (Alaska App.2005); Bucio v. Sutherland, 674 F.Supp.2d 882, 901 (S.D.Ohio 2009). [4] After consideration of Missouri's statutory scheme regarding homicide offenses and United States Supreme Court precedent expressly limiting Apprendi to the offense-specific context that supplied the historic grounding for the decision, Apprendi is inapplicable to a certification hearing. The maximum sentence for a person under age 18 for first degree murder is life without parole. § 565.020; Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005). The certification of Andrews did not enhance the potential maximum sentence for the crime he was alleged to have committed. His certification did not expose him to any greater punishment than authorized by the jury's verdict as required to violate Apprendi. 530 U.S. at 494, 120 S.Ct. 2348. This is because the judgment that certified Andrews to be tried as an adult did not impose any sentence on him whatsoever. Instead, it only determined that his case would be heard in a circuit court of general jurisdiction rather than the juvenile division of the circuit court  a decision to which other courts have determined Apprendi does not apply. See e.g. Gonzales v. Tafoya, 515 F.3d 1097, 1116 (10th Cir. 2008), and United States v. Miguel, 338 F.3d 995, 1004 (9th Cir.2003). Prior to his certification, Andrews was not a criminal defendant. Only after his certification was Andrews entitled to the right to a jury trial under both the United States and Missouri constitutions. McKeiver, 403 U.S. at 541, 91 S.Ct. 1976; In re Fisher, 468 S.W.2d 198, 202 (Mo. 1971). Until then he was not entitled to the right to a jury trial upon which the decision in Apprendi is based. Upon his certification, however, his case was tried in front of a jury where the State had to prove all elements of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt for him to receive the maximum sentence of life without parole. [5] If the jury did not find all of the elements of first degree murder, it had the option to convict Andrews of second degree murder or to acquit him. After the jury returned its verdict finding him guilty of first degree murder, the judge then sentenced him to the only remaining sentence authorized by law and in compliance with Apprendi. 530 U.S. at 497, 120 S.Ct. 2348. Therefore, Andrews has failed to demonstrate that § 211.071 clearly and undoubtedly violates the Sixth Amendment and, as such, this Court will not declare it unconstitutional.