Court Opinion

ID: 9369374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 17:02:16.883447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:14.508686
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 55
                        ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                              DIVISION I
                                             No. CR-22-99

                                                     Opinion Delivered   February 8, 2023
 LUTHER SHAW
                                              APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY
                                    APPELLANT CIRCUIT COURT
                                              [NO. 26CR-21-432]
 V.
                                                     HONORABLE MARCIA R.
 STATE OF ARKANSAS                                   HEARNSBERGER, JUDGE

                                      APPELLEE AFFIRMED

                                WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

        Appellant Luther Shaw appeals an order from the Garland County Circuit Court denying his

motion to transfer his case to the juvenile division of the circuit court. On appeal, he argues that the

circuit court’s denial of his transfer motion was clearly erroneous. We affirm.

        On June 21, 2021, the State charged Shaw with first-degree battery following an incident

that occurred on June 20. On July 28, Shaw, whose date of birth is June 15, 2005, and who was

sixteen years old when the alleged offense was committed, filed a motion to transfer the case to the

juvenile division of the circuit court. The court held a transfer hearing on October 7.

        At the hearing, the State called three witnesses: Kylee Sims, Hot Springs World Class High

School principal; Officer Lavon Chapman, Garland County Juvenile Court probation supervisor; and

Detective Mark Fallis of the Hot Springs Police Department. Shaw did not call any witnesses at the

transfer hearing.
        Principal Sims testified regarding Shaw’s school records that were admitted into evidence.

His record noted numerous absences, six out-of-school suspensions, nine in-school suspensions,

three bus suspensions, three corporal punishments, and other forms of reprimand. The multitude of

behavioral incidents involved fighting, insubordination, inappropriate language and gestures, drugs,

disorderly conduct, and bullying.

        On October 25, 2016, a family in need of services (“FINS”) petition was filed against Shaw

and his mother in the Garland County Circuit Court. The petition was based on ten Hot Springs

Intermediate School staff reports of Shaw’s problematic behavior in the classroom and on the school

bus. The reports resulted from Shaw’s defiant and aggressive behavior, including both the threats

and use of physical violence against school staff or students.

        On November 11, 2016, Shaw was admitted to Pinnacle Point Hospital due to aggressive

behavior and threats of severe harm toward his eight-year-old sister. He was discharged on

November 19 with instructions to continue medications and outpatient therapy.

        On December 6, 2016, February 16, 2017, and March 28, 2017, Shaw and his mother

appeared in juvenile court in case number JV-2016-494. On December 6, Shaw was ordered to

complete a Hot Springs School District educational program; attend school with no unexcused

absences or tardies; continue individual and family counseling; follow all rules at school and home;

take all medications as prescribed; and participate in a mentoring program. On February 16, Shaw

was ordered to continue to comply with the court’s previous orders and to follow all rules imposed

by the juvenile-probation office. He was also warned that if his behavior did not improve, he would

be placed at the Ouachita Children’s Center (“OCC”) residential facility. In the order entered on

                                                   2
March 28, the court reiterated its previous orders and warning. On April 12, 2017, the court

ordered Shaw’s residential placement at OCC.

       On May 16, 2017, case number 26JV-2017-270 was filed against Shaw in the Garland County

Circuit Court charging him with third-degree battery based on allegations that he struck another

juvenile at OCC. He was discharged from OCC and released into his grandmother’s custody. On

May 23, Shaw was charged in the same case with possession of a controlled substance. He was found

delinquent for both offenses and ordered to follow all rules imposed by the juvenile-probation office,

complete anger-management classes, continue with the OCC outreach program, and continue with

individual and family counseling. A petition for revocation of probation was filed in the case on June

27, alleging that Shaw had violated the condition of his probation requiring him to attend school with

no unexcused absences or tardies and obey all school rules because he had been expelled from

summer school.

       On October 16, 2017, in case number 26JV-2017-407, Shaw was charged with harassment

as the result of a neighbor’s allegations that he had thrown a glass bottle, which shattered on the

neighbor’s back porch. Shaw was again found delinquent on October 27 and was committed to the

juvenile detention facility for two days, placed on twenty-four months’ probation, and ordered to

follow all rules imposed by the juvenile-probation office.

       Garland County juvenile probation officer Lavon Chapman was assigned to supervise Shaw.

Chapman testified that, during his supervision of Shaw, Shaw’s mother, grandmother, and

grandfather—who lived in Pennsylvania—were very involved in Shaw’s life, and after Shaw began

                                                  3
counseling and resumed his medications, he did not have any issues with him. 1 An order discharging

probation and closing the case was entered on June 22, 2018.

       On September 11, Shaw was suspended from school for ten days for fighting. During the

2019–20 school year, Shaw attended high school in Pennsylvania where his grandfather resided. In

August 2020, Shaw enrolled in the Hot Springs World Class High School; however, he was expelled

shortly thereafter, in September, and transferred to Better Chances alternative school.

       Detective Fallis testified that on the night of June 20, 2021, he was called to the crime scene

where a fifteen-year-old female had been shot. The shooting occurred at a pavilion near a housing

project. Detective Fallis testified that he interviewed the victim at the hospital, where she received

surgery and treatment for the gunshot wound that fractured her pelvis and perforated her intestine

and colon. According to the victim, during an argument earlier in the day, Shaw threatened to shoot

her and her boyfriend. That evening, while gathered with friends at the pavilion, Shaw approached

her and her boyfriend. The argument and fighting resumed, and Shaw pulled a gun from his

waistband and began shooting, striking the victim in the upper thigh.

       Following the hearing on the motion to transfer the case to the juvenile division, on

November 16, the circuit court issued written findings denying Shaw’s transfer motion via an opinion

letter. An order reflecting the denial was entered on November 29. In its order, pursuant to

Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-318(g).2

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

       1Shaw’s school records reflect that, during the time he was under Officer Chapman’s
supervision, Shaw had five behavioral incidents.
       2(Repl. 2020).

                                                        4
        There is no doubt the offense of Battery in the First Degree, a class B felony,
is a serious crime in our society. In this case, Defendant threatened to shoot the
victim and her boyfriend if he saw them. He later found them at a public pavilion
and began an argument with the boyfriend, pulled a black handgun from his
waistband and began shooting at them striking victim in the upper thigh with one of
the bullets. Victim required surgery because of the gunshot would Defendant
inflicted. This is a crime involving forethought, purposeful action, and use of a
firearm posing great risk of serious physical injury to all present.

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

       Defendant threatened to shoot victim’s boyfriend during an early altercation
and many hours later carried through on this threat shooting at victim’s boyfriend
and victim and hitting victim with one of those bullets. These facts support a finding
of premeditated, willful, violent, and aggressive actions by the Defendant.

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

        Defendant directed violence against victim’s boyfriend and victim, shot at both of
them and hit victim with one of the bullets causing her to require surgery to repair a fractured
pelvis, perforated intestine and colon.

           4) The culpability of the juvenile, including the level of planning and participation in the
offense.

        Defendant made a threat, carried a firearm to a public park and proceeded to fire the
weapon at those gathered there. Defendant’s age did not allow him to legally purchase a
firearm, carry a firearm, or use a firearm. Defendant’s actions required illegally acquiring a
firearm, carrying a firearm illegally and using a firearm in a public city park. All of these
actions required planning and preparation.

         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.

         A Family in Need of Services case filed October 25, 2016 against Defendant and his
family in Garland County Circuit Court, Juvenile division, case number [ ] 26JV-16-494.
The referral came from the Hot Springs Intermediate School because [ ] he received four
office referrals and six bus referrals since the beginning of the school year for being aggressive

                                                 5
with both staff and other students and severely defiant. Defendant was placed on probation
and reviewed frequently until discharged May 30, 2017.

         A Petition filed in garland County Circuit Court 26JV-17-270 on May 16, 2017
alleged Defendant Juvenile Delinquent for committing Battey in the Third Degree. This
involved Defendant fighting at Ouachita Children’s Center where he resided because of the
FINS case referred to above. Defendant fought with a juvenile female who alleged Defendant
hit her in the mouth twice. Defendant was also charged in the same case with Possession of
Marijuana after an incident on Hot Springs Middle School property. The court found
Defendant delinquent on both charges and placed him on probation for 24 months.

      A Revocation of Probation filed June 27, 2017. Defendant discharged from Probation
September 5, 2017 and that case dismissed January 7, 2019.

       A Petition filed in 26JV-17-407 charged Defendant with Harassment due to
Defendant throwing a glass coke bottle at his neighbor’s porch. The court found Defendant
delinquent for this crime; sentenced him to two days in the juvenile detention facility and
ordered probation. His probation discharged June 22, 2018.

        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.

       Defendant’s Mother reported in 2017 in 26JV-17-407 no exposure to violence in the
home however Defendant has always been the violent one with his behavior; always bullying
someone even bullying his sister; no history of maltreatment; a support system in the home;
no peer rejection because her son is considered the bully. The Social History and Disposition
Recommendations describing Defendant’s overall attitude and emotions concluded
Defendant does not show any remorse for his actions and does not comply with any
intervention requiring him to adjust his behavior or comply with authority.

          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.

        Defendant received the following treatment while being supervised in Juvenile
Court: anger management, house arrest, probation, mentoring program, counseling, and
inpatient treatment with med management, housing at Ouachita Children's Center, “Better
Chances” alternative school and juvenile detention. The only thing Defendant did not
experience during his years involved with juvenile court is Boot Camp and a commitment to
DYS.

                                                  6
                  8) Whether the juvenile acted alone or was part of a group in the commission of the alleged
       offense.

              Defendant acted alone at the time of the offense. It is unknown whom if anyone may
       have helped him to obtain the firearm he used to cause the injury to the victim.

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

               Defendant admitted to Pinnacle Point at eleven (11) years of age in conjunction with
       the above-referenced FINS case. Upon his discharge, Defendant no longer exhibited or
       verbalized dangerous, aggressive, acting out behavior; was not suicidal or homicidal; was
       medically stable and presented no imminent threat to harm self or others.

                  10) Any other factors deemed relevant by the judge.

               Defendant left the State of Arkansas from August 2019 until May 2020 and lived in
       Pennsylvania. When he came back from Pennsylvania, his school expelled him and sent him
       to Better Chances because of fighting in school in September 2020. He had extensive periods
       of absence from school.

                At some point in time while numerous and continuous opportunities attempted to
       lead Defendant to a law-abiding life, Defendant chose to take possession of a firearm and
       carry it with him and actually use it to cause serious physical injury to a young girl.

               The COURT FINDS by clear and convincing evidence Defendant’s case should be
       adjudicated in the criminal division of the Circuit Court as filed. Therefore, the court
       DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Transfer to Juvenile Court.

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

criminal division of the circuit court if the juvenile has engaged in conduct that, if committed by an

adult, would be a felony.3 On the motion of the court or any party, the court in which the criminal

charges have been filed shall conduct a hearing to determine whether to transfer the case to another

division of circuit court having jurisdiction.4 The moving party bears the burden of proving that the

       3   Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318(c)(a) (Repl. 2020).
       4   Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318(e).

                                                        7
case should be transferred to the juvenile division of the circuit court. 5 The circuit court shall order

the case transferred to another division of circuit court only upon a finding by clear and convincing

evidence that the case should be transferred.6 Clear and convincing evidence is that degree of proof

that will produce in the trier of fact a firm conviction as to the allegation sought to be established. 7

We will not reverse a circuit court’s determination of whether to transfer a case unless the decision

is clearly erroneous.8 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.9

        At a juvenile-transfer hearing, the circuit court is required to consider all the factors set forth

in Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-318(g). The circuit court is required to make written

findings on each factor.10 However, there is no requirement that proof be introduced 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. 11 In fact, the statute specifically instructs the circuit court to

       5   Kiser v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 198, 487 S.W.3d 374.
       6   Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318(h)(2).
       7   Woods v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 576, 565 S.W.3d 124.
       8   Id.
       9   Id.
       10   Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318(h)(1).
       11   Heard v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 586, 590 S.W.3d 215.

                                                    8
give greater weight to offenses against persons.12 It is well settled “that a juvenile may be tried as an

adult solely because of the serious and violent nature of the offense.”13 The denial of a juvenile-

transfer motion is not clearly erroneous simply because some evidence might weigh in favor of

granting the motion.14 On review, this court will not reweigh the evidence presented to the circuit

court.15

        On appeal, Shaw argues that the circuit court’s denial of his motion to transfer was clearly

erroneous. He asserts that the court erred in finding that the factors weighed in favor of a criminal

prosecution.

        We hold that the circuit court did not clearly err by denying Shaw’s transfer motion. As

required, the court considered and made written findings on each factor outlined in Arkansas Code

Annotated section 9-27-318(g). Each of the circuit court’s findings was supported by the evidence

presented at the transfer hearing.

        On appeal, Shaw concedes that by the very nature of the alleged offense of first-degree

battery, the first three factors weigh against his motion to transfer. Despite this acknowledgement,

Shaw contends that other factors weigh in favor of a juvenile prosecution. Specifically, he argues that

his lack of maturity and sophistication; the availability of facilities and programs likely to aid in his

rehabilitation prior to the expiration of the juvenile division’s jurisdiction; and reports and testimony

       12   See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318(g)(3).
       13   Moore v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 516, at 5, 558 S.W.3d 918, 921.
       14   See Lindsey v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 355, 498 S.W.3d 336.
       15   McClendon v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 217, 599 S.W.3d 668.

                                                   9
concerning his mental, physical, educational, and social history all weigh in favor of the motion to

transfer. Despite his contention, Shaw’s concession that the first three factors weigh against him due

to the charged offense itself, is alone sufficient to deny his juvenile-transfer motion. Shaw argues that

while relevant to the circuit court’s determination, “nothing prohibits a juvenile offender who

commits a serious violent crime against a person from being transferred to the juvenile division.”

However, as previously stated, a juvenile may be tried as an adult solely because of the serious and

violent nature of the offenses.16 Here, Shaw was charged with an undisputedly serious and violent

offense that resulted in serious physical injury to another person. Following an argument, Shaw

threatened to shoot the victim and her boyfriend if he saw them; later, at a public park, he followed

through with his threat. The victim required surgery and suffered serious physical injury as a result

of Shaw’s violent actions. Although Shaw would have the court give greater weight to other factors,

we will not reweigh the evidence presented to the circuit court. The denial of a juvenile-transfer

motion is not clearly erroneous simply because some evidence might weigh in favor of granting the

motion.17

        For the reasons stated above, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of Shaw’s motion to transfer

his case to the juvenile division of the circuit court.

        Affirmed.

        ABRAMSON and GLADWIN, JJ., agree.

        Robert M. “Robby” Golden, for appellant.

        16   Moore, 2018 Ark. App. 516, 558 S.W.3d 918.
        17   Lindsey, supra.

                                                    10
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

                                          11