Court Opinion

ID: 9928261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 15:02:12.753658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:13.693168
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 58
                    ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                         DIVISION II
                                         No. CR-23-232

                                                  Opinion Delivered January 31, 2024
 JOSEPH DICKERSON
                                 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
                                           COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
 V.                                        SEVENTH DIVISION
                                           [NO. 60CR-22-2334]

 STATE OF ARKANSAS                          HONORABLE KAREN D.
                                   APPELLEE WHATLEY, JUDGE

                                                  AFFIRMED

                             N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge

       Joseph Dickerson appeals from the order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court

denying his motion to transfer his criminal charges to the juvenile division of the Pulaski

County Circuit Court. We affirm.

       A prosecuting attorney has the discretion to charge a juvenile, sixteen years of age or

older, in the juvenile or criminal division of circuit court if the juvenile has allegedly engaged

in conduct that, if committed by an adult, would be a felony. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-

318(c)(1) (Repl. 2020). Pursuant to that statute, the State charged Dickerson, along with two

codefendants, in the criminal division of the Pulaski County Circuit Court with two felony

counts: first-degree murder and terroristic act. Following Dickerson’s motion to transfer his

charges to the juvenile division, the court conducted a hearing in which Dickerson bore the
burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that his case should be transferred.

Lindsey v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 355, 498 S.W.3d 336. Clear and convincing evidence is the

degree of proof that will produce in the trier of fact a firm conviction as to the allegation

sought to be established. Id.

       Detective Jeff Coburn of the North Little Rock Police Department testified regarding

the shooting death of Jaylen Brown, which led to Dickerson’s charges. On March 31, 2022,

sixteen-year-old Dickerson, Brown, and three other teenagers rode together in a car to a

residence in North Little Rock where, according to one of the participants, they intended to

conduct a “drill.” Coburn said that a “drill” was a shooting at an occupied residence.

Codefendant Cortlen Waters told detectives that the group first traveled to Alexander to

obtain ammunition for the three guns they possessed before driving to the home in North

Little Rock where they believed someone responsible for shooting Waters the previous year

was inside. At about 4:30 a.m., the group parked on the street, everyone but the driver got

out, and they fired shots at the house and a vehicle.

       Brown was found in the street with a gunshot wound to the back of his head, and

twenty-three expended shell casings were found at the scene. Waters told detectives that he

turned and saw Brown on the ground bleeding and Dickerson standing beside him.

According to Waters, during the car ride, Dickerson had argued with Brown over who was

going to have possession of one of the guns after Brown allegedly mishandled a gun, and

Dickerson attempted to take possession of it. However, no one alleged that Dickerson had

fired one of the three handguns possessed by the group, and the gun possessed by Brown in

                                              2
the car was found underneath him at the scene. Detective Coburn testified that Brown’s

shooting was consistent with “friendly fire,” perhaps from the third codefendant firing from

the other side of the car, but he had not been able to prove it. Dickerson had claimed

affiliation with a gang in online messages. Three adults and one child were inside the house

the group shot at.

       Dickerson’s father testified that Dickerson had snuck out of the house on the night

of the shooting. He testified that since bonding out of jail, Dickerson had been “scared

straight” and had been focusing on his schoolwork and bringing up his grades. He reported

that Dickerson had quit using social media and was dealing with reality and no longer living

in a dream world.

       Jennifer Baptist, a juvenile probation officer with Pulaski County Juvenile Court,

testified that Dickerson was on probation for misdemeanor theft by receiving committed in

February 2022. At the time of the hearing, Dickerson had been on probation for a little

over three months and had done “excellent.” In addition to theft by receiving, he was

initially also charged with possession of a controlled substance and obstructing governmental

operations, but those charges were nolle prossed according to a negotiated agreement. At

the time of the shooting, Dickerson had not yet been placed on probation, but he was on

“conditions” for the theft by receiving. The “conditions” included a curfew and an order to

obey the law. Dickerson had prior intakes that were dismissed in 2018 for disorderly conduct

and in 2021 for fleeing. Brooke Digby, the juvenile ombudsman at the Public Defender

Commission, testified regarding the resources available for rehabilitation in juvenile court,

                                             3
including resources for individuals aged eighteen to twenty-one. At the time of the hearing,

Dickerson was seventeen years old.

       Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-318(g), the circuit court shall

consider all of the following factors in a transfer hearing:

          (1) The seriousness of the alleged offense and whether the protection of society
       requires prosecution in the criminal division of circuit court;

          (2) Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent,
       premeditated, or willful manner;

          (3) Whether the offense was against a person or property, with greater weight
       being given to offenses against persons, especially if personal injury resulted;

          (4) The culpability of the juvenile, including the level of planning and
       participation in the alleged offense;

          (5) The previous history of the juvenile, including whether the juvenile had been
       adjudicated a juvenile offender and, if so, whether the offenses were against persons
       or property, and any other previous history of antisocial behavior or patterns of
       physical violence;

           (6) The sophistication or maturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration
       of the juvenile’s home, environment, emotional attitude, pattern of living, or desire
       to be treated as an adult;

           (7) Whether there are facilities or programs available to the judge of the juvenile
       division of circuit court that are likely to rehabilitate the juvenile before the expiration
       of the juvenile’s twenty-first birthday;

           (8) Whether the juvenile acted alone or was part of a group in the commission of
       the alleged offense;

          (9) Written reports and other materials relating to the juvenile’s mental, physical,
       educational, and social history; and

           (10) Any other factors deemed relevant by the judge.

                                                4
The circuit court is required to make written findings on all of the above factors. Ark. Code

Ann. § 9-27-318(h)(1). However, there is no requirement that proof be introduced against

the juvenile on each factor, and the circuit court is not obligated to give equal weight to each

of these factors in determining whether a case should be transferred. Lindsey, supra. We will

not reverse a circuit court’s determination of whether to transfer a case unless that decision

is clearly erroneous. Id. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to

support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a firm conviction that a

mistake has been committed. Id.

       The circuit court made written findings on all of the above factors and concluded

that there was not clear and convincing evidence that the case should be transferred. On

appeal, Dickerson concedes that the first three factors weigh against transferring the case to

the juvenile division, but he nonetheless argues that the court clearly erred. Dickerson argues

that other factors weigh in favor of transfer, including his lack of prior violent history, his

lack of sophistication and maturity, and his lack of culpability since there is no evidence that

he took part in coordinating the shooting or that he carried a firearm with him. He also

argues that the circuit court ignored numerous programs available to juvenile offenders

nearing the age of eighteen when it found, in part, that he “turns 18 in September and there

is little time remaining for services to be obtained.” Dickerson points to Digby’s testimony

that there were “not a lot of [treatment options] that stop at 18.”

       While the court did find that there was “little time remaining,” in the same paragraph

the court noted that Dickerson could be committed to the Division of Youth Services and

                                               5
that if the case is given an extended-juvenile-jurisdiction designation, he would be placed on

probation for at least three years after his twenty-first birthday. Even if this factor weighed

in favor of transferring, the court was not required to assign equal weight to this factor and

was entitled to use its discretion in deciding the weight to be afforded each factor. Lindsey,

supra. Furthermore, a juvenile may be tried as an adult solely because of the serious and

violent nature of the offenses. Sharp v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 255, 548 S.W.3d 846. It is of

no moment that Dickerson did not personally employ a gun used during the crimes; his

association with the use of weapons in the course of the crimes satisfies the fact that the

crimes were committed in a violent manner. Id. The court found that both crimes were

serious, violent crimes committed against people and that the terroristic act was willful and

premeditated. Dickerson was present in the car leading up to the event and present at the

scene of the crime. We hold that the circuit court did not clearly err in denying Dickerson’s

motion to transfer.

       Affirmed.

       BARRETT and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

       James Law Firm, by: William O. “Bill” James, Jr., and Drew Curtis, for appellant.

       Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

                                               6