Opinion ID: 1431569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Question of a Full Investigation.

Text: Appellant next contends that the juvenile department failed to make a full investigation pursuant to NRS 62.080, because it did not extend its inquiries beyond the circumstances surrounding the series of burglaries. This contention is without merit. In Kline v. State, 86 Nev. 59, 464 P.2d 461 (1970), and Lewis v. State, 86 Nev. 889, 478 P.2d 168 (1970), we adopted the criteria established by Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966), for determining a valid waiver of jurisdiction from juvenile court. The order appealed from is thorough and indicates that the judge carefully considered the character and disposition of the appellant, together with the nature of his past and present offenses, his amenability to juvenile treatment, and each of the remaining elements enunciated in Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. at 565-68, 86 S.Ct. 1045; and Lewis v. State, 86 Nev. at 893 n. 2, 478 P.2d at 170-171 n. 2. Accord, Martin v. State, 94 Nev. 687, 585 P.2d 1346 (1978). The juvenile court has considerable latitude in determining whether it should retain or waive jurisdiction. Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. at 552-53, 86 S.Ct. 1045. The instant order waiving jurisdiction provides with ample specificity the reasons for the appellant's certification as an adult. Appellant was certified to be tried as an adult primarily because the juvenile court determined that he was not amenable to juvenile treatment, particularly within the period remaining before the juvenile court's jurisdiction is terminated. [8] The trial court's careful evaluation plainly meets the statutory requirement of full investigation. We find no error. We affirm the order of the district court, waiving its juvenile jurisdiction. THOMPSON and BATJER, JJ., concur.