Opinion ID: 1367475
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Magistrate's Findings Support the Order.

Text: An order waiving juvenile jurisdiction is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Christensen, 100 Idaho 631, 633, 603 P.2d 586, 588 (1979). To determine whether discretion has been abused, the Court must ascertain: first, whether the trial court correctly perceived the issue as one requiring the exercise of discretion; second, whether the trial court acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and, third, whether the court reached its conclusion by an exercise of reason. Sun Valley Shopping Center v. Idaho Power, 119 Idaho 87, 94, 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991). The magistrate based his decision on I.C. § 16-1806(8), which provides: (8) In considering whether or not to waive juvenile jurisdiction over the child, the juvenile court shall consider the following factors: (a) The seriousness of the offense and whether the protection of the community requires isolation of the child beyond that afforded by juvenile facilities; (b) Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated, or willful manner; (c) Whether the alleged offense was against persons or property, greater weight being given to offenses against persons; (d) The maturity of the child as determined by considerations of his home, environment, emotional attitude, and pattern of living; (e) The child's record and previous history of contacts with the juvenile justice system; (f) The likelihood of rehabilitation of the child by use of facilities available to the court; (g) The amount of weight to be given to each of factors listed in subsection (8) of this section is discretionary with the court, and a determination that the minor is not a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the juvenile law may be based on any one or a combination of the factors set forth above, which shall be recited in the order of waiver. The magistrate's findings track the factors listed in I.C. § 16-1806(8). He found: (a) that the offenses were of a substantially serious nature but that the protection of society did not necessarily require incarceration of Zamora; (b) that the offenses were not committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or wilful manner but were the result of alcohol consumption exhibiting a gross disregard for the rights and safety of others; (c) that the offense was against persons, but that Zamora did not intend to inflict injury upon the passengers in the truck; (d) that Zamora is a mature, responsible individual who is married and living on his own; (e) that Zamora has a `very good record' and his previous contacts with the juvenile system were of `no particular concern'; (f) that, although `the court [was] without specific information regarding the need for rehabilitation in this particular case,' it appeared that the juvenile facilities available were not designed for an individual the age and maturity level of Zamora. The magistrate noted that Zamora's high level of maturity was a particularly compelling factor in his decision to waive juvenile jurisdiction. He wrote that [t]his factor, coupled with the serious nature of the offenses, convinces this court that it is a compelling case for waiver of juvenile jurisdiction. In cases like this one, where a youth has allegedly committed an offense before reaching eighteen years of age but is not charged until after reaching adulthood, a court must first refer to I.C. § 16-1806(1) when deciding whether to waive jurisdiction. That section provides: (1) After the filing of a petition and after full investigation and hearing, the court may waive jurisdiction under the youth rehabilitation act over the child and order the child to be held for adult criminal proceedings when: (a) A child is alleged to have committed an act after he or she became fourteen (14) years of age which would be a crime if committed by an adult; or (b) An adult at the time of the filing of the petition is alleged to have committed an act prior to his having become eighteen (18) years of age which would be a felony if committed by an adult, and the court finds that the adult is not committable to an institution for the mentally deficient or mentally ill, is not treatable in any available institution or facility available to the state designed for the care and treatment of children, or that the safety of the community requires the adult continue under restraint; or (c) An adult already under the jurisdiction of the court is alleged to have committed a crime while an adult. The court, as a threshold matter, must determine whether the accused falls within subsection (1)(a), (b), or (c). Only those individuals who fall into or within one of those three categories are subject to waiver. If the accused falls within subsection (1)(a), the court may waive jurisdiction, but only after considering the subsection (8) factors (as noted above, subsection (8) contains the mandatory language shall in considering the factors listed when deciding whether to waive juvenile jurisdiction). In this case, Zamora falls within subsection (1)(b) because the charged act occurred when he was seventeen, but he was not charged until he was eighteen. Pursuant to subsection (1)(b), the magistrate was required to find that: 1) Zamora was not committable to an institution for the mentally ill or deficient, 2) he was not treatable in the juvenile system, or, 3) the safety of the community required that Zamora remain under restraint before he could be considered for waiver. Instead, the magistrate focused exclusively on the subsection (8) factors and did not address the subsection (1)(b) factors at all. This error, however, did not prejudice Zamora because the magistrate, in considering subsection (8)(f) (the likelihood of rehabilitation by the use of facilities available to the court) found one of the required subsection (1) factors, that it appeared that Zamora could not benefit from any treatment programs available in the juvenile system. Because the magistrate made all of the findings required to waive jurisdiction, and because it appears that the magistrate's failure to separately consider the subsection (1)(b) waiver factors before considering the subsection (8) factors had no effect on the magistrate's ultimate decision, a reversal cannot be predicated upon that error. We have reviewed the record and have determined that the magistrate was aware that the decision whether to waive jurisdiction was one of discretion; that he acted within the outer boundaries of that discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to it; and that he reached his decision by the exercise of reason. Based upon the factors set forth in Sun Valley Shopping Center, 119 Idaho at 94, 803 P.2d at 1001, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion when it waived jurisdiction based upon the seriousness of the offense and the maturity factor.