Court Opinion

ID: 9775399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:57:01.313139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:25.752991
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring. This case is a companion appeal to one we handed down on February 19, 1996, Macon v. State, 323 Ark. 498, 915 S.W.2d 273, and involves identical facts and contentions. There is, however, a difference in the two juveniles’ ages. That difference is what prompts my concurring opinion. In Macon, we rejected the seventeen-year-old juvenile’s argument that the trial court had failed to consider factors (2) and (3) of Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318(e) (Supp. 1995) when deciding whether to transfer his case to juvenile court. We then determined the proof was sufficient to support the trial court’s holding that Macon’s actions and offenses exhibited a serious and violent nature under § 9-27-318(e)(l), and affirmed the decision, denying Macon’s motion to transfer. We added that Macon failed to show the trial court clearly erred in finding Macon was not a good prospect for rehabilitation, especially in view of the fact Macon would turn eighteen years old within thirty days after the hearing. See McGaughey v. State, 321 Ark. 537, 906 S.W.2d 671 (1995). For example, a person who has reached his eighteenth birthday cannot be committed to a youth services center. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9-27-331 (a)(1) and 9-28-206 (Supp. 1995); Bright v. State, 307 Ark. 250, 819 S.W.2d 7 (1991). The Macon decision is unquestionably controlling here, because juvenile Courtney Guy’s actions and offenses are the same as Macon’s, and therefore support denial of his motion to transfer under § 9-27-318(e)(l). However, unlike Macon who had turned eighteen years old only days after his transfer hearing, Guy was only sixteen at the time of his hearing; thus, existing rehabilitation programs (such as youth services center) were still available for Guy, assuming he had met the other requirements of § 9-27-318(e). Because Guy’s prior offenses involved misdemeanor criminal trespass and theft, I believe he would have been a viable candidate for rehabilitation except for the seriousness of his and his accomplices’ actions and employment of violence. In sum, I would affirm solely on the basis that Guy failed to show the trial court erred in finding the proof supported its denial decision under § 9-27-318(e)(1). Dudley and Newbern, JJ., join this concurrence.