Cite as 2026 Ark. 15 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-24-603
Opinion Delivered: February 5, 2026
AYDEN MERRELL APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE MILLER V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 46CR-24-295] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE L. WREN AUTRY, JUDGE
AFFIRMED.
COURTNEY RAE HUDSON, Associate Justice
Appellant Ayden Merrell appeals the Miller County Circuit Court’s order sentencing
him as an adult and imposing a life sentence for his commission of capital murder and
aggravated robbery when he was a juvenile. For reversal, Merrell argues that the circuit
court erred by finding that the State proved that he was not amenable to treatment and that
public safety required the imposition of an adult sentence. We affirm.
On February 2, 2017, then-twelve-year-old Merrell was arrested for the murder of
Christa Shockley, a twenty-one-year-old clerk working at the E-Z Mart convenience store
in Fouke, Arkansas. The State filed a delinquency petition in the juvenile division of circuit
court on February 3 charging Merrell with capital murder and aggravated robbery. The
petition alleged that Merrell had entered the convenience store, shot Shockley seven times
with a pistol, exited the store and, after reentering, stole a vapor cigarette pack and headphones. The State also filed a motion seeking to designate Merrell as an extended-
juvenile-jurisdiction (EJJ) offender.1
At the August 30, 2018 hearing on the EJJ motion, surveillance video from the E-Z
Mart was introduced. The video recording shows Merrell first entering the store at 12:56
a.m. on February 2, 2017. He was wearing a sweatshirt with the hood up, a bandana around
his neck, and a backpack. He purchased a drink and then left, lurking around the side of the
store near the dumpster and occasionally peering through the front windows. At 1:24 a.m.,
Merrell reenters the convenience store with his bandana pulled up over his nose. He browses
for about ten minutes and then steals an electronic cigarette and an energy drink while
Shockley is in the back of the store. After continuing to lurk outside the store, Merrell
reenters at 1:58 a.m. and immediately begins shooting his pistol at Shockley. He fires seven
shots as he advances at Shockley, fires one more after a brief pause, and then quickly exits
the store. Shockley falls to her hands and knees, screams for help and for her mother, and
eventually falls onto her back. After pacing outside and peering through the front windows,
Merrell again enters the store at 2:02 a.m. He walks past Shockley’s body several times as
he goes behind the counter and briefly pauses to look at her. After stealing a pair of
headphones and a vape cartridge, Merrell leaves the store and can be seen throwing items
into the dumpster.
1 The State may request an EJJ designation for a juvenile under the age of thirteen years at the time of the alleged offense who is charged with capital murder if the State has overcome the presumptions of lack of fitness to proceed and lack of capacity. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-501(a)(1) (Supp. 2025).
2 Sergeant Wesley Penny testified that he identified Merrell from the surveillance
video. Penny explained that he had seen Merrell a couple of weeks before the murder,
walking alone late at night wearing shorts and no shoes. Merrell claimed that he had been
locked out of his house. Penny stated that, when he took Merrell home, the family denied
that Merrell had been locked out, and they also showed him a cell-phone video where
Merrell had recently slapped the phone out of his grandmother’s hand when she was trying
to record him.
The police detained Merrell at school on the morning of February 2 and interviewed
him. Merrell confessed to the crimes. He initially claimed that Shockley looked like his
mother’s friend who had helped her physically abuse him; however, he later told Dr.
Benjamin Silber, a psychological examiner, that he had made up that explanation and did
not know why he shot the victim. Merrell told Penny that he took the pistol from his
father’s locked shed when he snuck out that night. When Penny asked why Merrell kept
looking at his watch on the surveillance video, Merrell stated that he wanted to be back
home by 3:00 a.m. because his father got up at 4:00 a.m. Penny stated that the police
recovered the pistol, spare magazine, hoodie, and bandana in a wooded area behind the
store.
Multiple witnesses testified regarding Merrell’s history of violent and antisocial
behavior. His father, Joey, stated that Merrell’s issues began when he was two years old and
that he became very defiant and resistant to change. Joey began seeking professional help
for Merrell at the age of three. Joey stated that after gaining sole custody of Merrell when
he was six due to physical abuse by his biological mother, Merrell’s aggression increased.
3 For example, Merrell punched his stepmother in the jaw when he saw her with a coin that
was his. Joey testified that Merrell also had major behavioral problems at school, and he
placed him in a therapeutic day-treatment center for a period of time.
Merrell’s second-grade teacher testified that Merrell punched, hit, and scratched
other children and school personnel. He would also draw graphic pictures depicting himself
as someone in the military shooting other people, and he told his teacher, “One day you’re
going to be scared of me.” Merrell’s school principal at that time testified that Merrell had
a lot of problems interacting with peers, used extreme profanity, threatened teachers and
students, and had an obsession with weapons and “Call of Duty.” She stated that Merrell
was the only student whose backpack she checked each day for a gun. One of Merrell’s
former therapists also testified that Merrell had arranged Legos that represented his mother
surrounded by blood and that he had expressed a desire to kill her.
Dr. Silber also recognized that Merrell had a pattern of antisocial and violent
behavior. He stated that Merrell’s intellectual functioning was average but that his emotional
and social skills were considerably below average. Dr. Silber diagnosed him with autism
spectrum disorder and conduct disorder but opined that Merrell does have control of his
actions and knows the difference between right and wrong. Dr. Silber further testified that
Merrell scored highly when given a test to determine whether he was feigning, or
exaggerating, mental-health symptoms. Dr. Silber disagreed with the diagnosis of Dr.
Charles Ewing, a second forensic psychologist who examined Merrell at the request of the
defense and who opined that Merrell was delusional and suffered from schizophrenia. Dr.
4 Ewing testified that Merrell told him that he was involved in gangs and a drug cartel and
that he had committed multiple murders, robberies, and assaults.
The State presented evidence about Merrell’s behavior subsequent to his arrest as
well. Michael Kelly, who was employed at the Miller County Juvenile Center (JDC) where
Merrell was being confined, testified that he had confiscated a comb from Merrell that he
had fashioned into a shank. Merrell had also written disturbing phrases on the wall in his
cell, such as “I let her die,” “I see hell,” “I see all evil things,” and “Fear none, kill all.”
Kelly testified that Merrell had acted aggressively toward other juveniles and JDC personnel,
such as punching another inmate “out of the blue.” Carmen Hartfield, another JDC
employee, described an incident in which Merrell had threatened staff and had to be
physically restrained. Hartfield testified that Merrell told her while restrained that “he would
kill us, me myself, and he said he would stand over me as I take my last breath.” As the staff
was releasing him from the restraints, Merrell turned around and hit Hartfield in the face.
She testified to yet another incident where Merrell cursed at her, had to be physically
restrained, and again stated that he would kill them and watch them die. Rhonda Magee,
who was also employed at the JDC, described an incident where Merrell was disciplined for
putting feces on the toilet and then told the staff that “he was going to put two shots in
[their heads] and eight in [their] chests just like he had done before.” Other JDC staff
testified to additional incidents where Merrell cursed, physically assaulted, and/or threatened
other juveniles and staff.
Following the hearing, the circuit court entered an order on October 9, 2018,
granting the State’s motion to designate Merrell as an EJJ offender. Merrell’s appeal of the
5 EJJ designation was affirmed. A.M. v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 357, 584 S.W.3d 253 (Merrell
I). After the circuit court determined that Merrell was fit to proceed, a jury trial on the
delinquency petition was held on July 6–8, 2020.2 The jury rejected Merrell’s affirmative
defense of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and found that he had committed
capital murder and aggravated robbery and used a firearm during the commission of these
offenses. The circuit court entered an order on July 17 adjudicating Merrell delinquent and
committing him to the Arkansas Division of Youth Services (DYS) as an EJJ offender until
such time as DYS petitioned for his release. The circuit court stated that imposition of an
adult sentence was suspended pending future review. 3 Merrell appealed the circuit court’s
rulings finding him fit to proceed and adjudicating him delinquent, and the court of appeals
affirmed. A.M. v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 418.
Merrell was transferred to the Alexander facility of DYS where he received
rehabilitative services through the Rite of Passage (ROP) program for several years. On
June 16, 2022, DYS filed a petition to release Merrell that it then withdrew on August 30,
stating that the petition had been filed prematurely. A second petition to release, which was
filed on December 22, was also withdrawn by DYS several weeks later. On October 4,
2023, DYS filed a petition to impose an adult sentence on Merrell, stating that he was not
amenable to rehabilitation and that imposition of an adult sentence was necessary based on
2 An EJJ offender and the State have a right to a jury trial at the adjudication hearing. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-505(a) (Supp. 2025). 3 If a juvenile is found delinquent as an EJJ offender, the circuit court shall either order any of the juvenile dispositions authorized by Ark. Code Ann. § 9-35-423 or suspend the imposition of an adult sentence pending court review. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-506 (Supp. 2025).
6 the nature of the offenses, the risk to public safety, the length of time he had been in DYS
custody, the incidents while he was in custody, and the opinion of rehabilitative staff. On
January 30, 2024, this petition was also withdrawn by DYS because of Merrell’s progress in
reaching his treatment goals and the fact that he had not been the aggressor of an incident
since March 2023.
Merrell filed a petition for review and modification of his disposition on February
27, 2024, requesting that he be released from DYS custody. DYS filed another petition for
release on March 12 claiming that Merrell had been rehabilitated and should be discharged
to a supervised aftercare program. On March 20, the State filed a petition to impose an adult
sentence on Merrell, who had just turned twenty years old.
The circuit court held a hearing on the competing petitions on May 7, 8, and 10,
2024. The parties stipulated that the circuit court could take judicial notice of all prior
proceedings, transcripts, pleadings, and exhibits in the case. DYS presented the testimony
of seven witnesses from the Alexander facility. Dr. Sean Jones testified that he had been
Merrell’s therapist since August 2023 and met with him for thirty minutes to an hour each
week. Dr. Jones stated that Merrell had made great progress, that he had completed all of
his treatment goals, and that there was nothing left for him to accomplish. Dr. Jones admitted
that Merrell had been involved in an altercation about a week prior to the hearing, but it
was his understanding that another student had approached Merrell and challenged him. He
believed that Merrell was capable of restraining himself if released into the community and
stated that Merrell “is not the type to run up on individuals and instigate or initiate
aggression or violence.” Dr. Jones testified that Merrell was not manipulative with him but
7 agreed that a former therapist or treatment team member had described Merrell as
manipulative in the past. According to Dr. Jones, Merrell was ready to be released and was
not a danger to himself or others.
On cross-examination, Dr. Jones agreed that DYS had filed a petition to impose an
adult sentence in October 2023 but stated that it was withdrawn in January 2024 because
the treatment team and Merrell’s counsel disagreed with it. Dr. Jones admitted that Merrell
had completed the majority of his behavioral health goals in January 2024. Dr. Jones also
acknowledged that his description of the recent incident involving Merrell and another
student differed from the written staff report of the incident but claimed that the report was
incorrect. Dr. Jones testified that Merrell was interested in a career in the military focusing
on cyber security. When asked whether he had any concerns about Merrell carrying a
firearm, Dr. Jones stated that he did not, although he stated that he did not have a crystal
ball and could not answer the question whether that would be a risk to public safety. On
redirect, Dr. Jones testified that he had never concluded that a juvenile under his care was
not amenable to rehabilitation. The State later re-called Dr. Jones, who admitted that his
license had recently been suspended for two years as the result of a complaint by what he
described as a disgruntled co-worker.
Jennifer Johnson, Merrell’s case manager at ROP since August 2023, testified that
she met with Merrell weekly but also saw him throughout the day around the campus. With
regard to the incident in April 2024, Johnson testified that it was also her understanding that
another student had approached Merrell and initiated the conflict. Johnson stated that she
had no concerns about releasing Merrell and that she did not believe he posed an imminent
8 threat to public safety. Johnson agreed on cross-examination that simply because Merrell
had exhausted all of the opportunities available to him at DYS did not necessarily mean that
he was rehabilitated.
Kimberly Bell, the assistant director for DYS, testified that Merrell was one of her
students when she was the clinical director at ROP a couple of years earlier. She stated that
he was guarded with her but that he had matured and made progress since then. Bell
explained that DYS had filed the earlier petition to impose an adult sentence because Merrell
was not doing well at that time and that there were concerns with his aggression and lack
of remorse. She testified that her only concern with him being released would be if he did
not actively continue in treatment. She also stated that he would need stringent supervision.
During cross-examination of Bell, the State played the video recording of the murder. Bell
testified that after watching it, she could not say that Merrell did not understand the gravity
of his crimes. When asked whether she was concerned about him reoffending in the same
manner, Bell testified that she could not say what he might do if released. According to Bell,
Merrell had told her that he committed the murder because he was on an assignment from
his uncles, who were part of the Russian mafia. When she asked Merrell what regrets that
he had about that night, he responded that he regretted staying at the scene of the crime for
too long. Bell further stated that Merrell had made other statements that concerned her,
such as saying that gay people were “less than human.” She was also concerned about his
desire for a career in either the United States military or Russian Special Forces, about his
recent altercation in April, and about the fact that he had only started participating in certain
programs after discussions began about his potential release. Bell agreed that other staff had
9 reported Merrell’s manipulative behavior and that he had also attempted to manipulate her.
She stated that Merrell “was very big on receiving respect in order to give respect.”
Candra Dobson, the case coordinator supervisor, testified that she had known Merrell
since he entered the facility. She met with him each month but also saw him on the campus
almost daily. She stated that he was not the same person as he was in 2020 and that he had
matured and made great progress. Dobson testified that an aftercare plan had been prepared,
that Merrell would be living with his father in Texarkana, Texas, and that Texas would be
abiding by the plan. She indicated that she had no concerns about the aftercare plan. When
asked on cross-examination about the recent incident with Merrell, Dobson stated that she
did not witness it but was told by staff that Merrell was defending himself. She disagreed
that he had displayed violent behavior during the incident. Dobson did not believe Merrell
was a risk to public safety because he had completed the treatment goals and had not been
a threat to himself or others in a long time.
Charles Parkins, the program director for ROP at the facility, testified that he had
worked more closely with Merrell since July or August 2023, when Merrell was involved
with the World of Works program where the juveniles who had earned their GEDs or high
school diplomas would learn employment skills and about different trades. Parkins stated
that Merrell had helped him set up and maintain a saltwater fish tank and had earned the
privilege of an outing to a pet store. Merrell also worked with maintenance and in the
kitchen. Parkins testified that Merrell had “come a long way” in treatment and that he was
no more of a threat to public safety than any other person. On cross-examination, the State
introduced a video of the April 27, 2024 incident. Parkins agreed that the video shows
10 Merrell twice approaching another student who was sitting on the couch listening to music.
The first time, Merrell placed his hands on the student’s shoulders and then sat back down
in a chair in the corner. When he approached the second time, Merrell placed the other
student in a headlock. The staff then intervened and separated them. Parkins also testified
to another incident in February 2023 where Merrell was accessing a Discord server on his
computer rather than working on his college courses. Parkins stated that Merrell’s email
activity showed multiple videos downloaded from that site depicting graphic violence and
nudity.
Charles Todd, a case manager at ROP, testified that Merrell was “standoffish” when
he first came to the facility and that he was sometimes bullied by other peers. Todd stated
that he developed a good rapport with Merrell, at least partly due to Todd’s military
background and Merrell’s interest in the military. Todd testified that Merrell had shown
tremendous growth and that he did not believe Merrell posed a substantial risk to public
safety. On cross-examination, Todd indicated that he was familiar with Merrell’s belief that
he was a Russian operative and stated that he had told Merrell to stop discussing that,
particularly if he wanted to join the United States military. Todd agreed that some staff were
fearful of Merrell because he can be intimidating.
The final DYS witness was Tyler Cox, the dean of students at ROP. Cox stated that
he was in charge of the status program where the students progress through three stages—
Rookie, Intern, and Ram—according to behavior-management skills. He testified that
Merrell began showing interest in the program a year earlier and that he earned Intern status
in October 2023 and Ram status in March 2024. Cox also referenced several awards and
11 certificates that Merrell had earned for positive behavior and stated that he did not believe
Merrell posed any threat to public safety. On cross-examination, Cox agreed that all of the
awards he had mentioned had been earned from October 2023 onward. He also admitted
that Merrell had at least twenty-two incident reports in his file, although Merrell was not
necessarily the aggressor in all of them. Cox expressed concern over the April 2024
altercation and the fact that Merrell did not use the behavioral skills he had learned during
that event. When asked what assurance he could give the court that Merrell would utilize
those skills if released from DYS, Cox stated, “I can’t testify to that. It would be up to him
personally.”
Merrell called four additional witnesses to testify on his behalf. Elvira Pecina, a former
counselor and instructor at ROP, stated that Merrell earned his GED early on and continued
to learn life skills through working in the kitchen and for maintenance. She testified that
she had seen a lot of growth and positivity from Merrell since late 2022, when she began
interacting with him on a daily basis. Lavaris Edwards, the director of group living at the
facility, also testified that Merrell had grown during the past two years and that he was now
self-motivated to participate in the program. Brooke Digby, juvenile ombudsman for the
Arkansas Public Defender Commission, testified that she is an advocate for the youth in
DYS. She stated that she had interacted with Merrell frequently over the past four years and
that she had seen significant progress, including witnessing him walk away from a conflict.
Finally, Merrell’s father, Joey, testified regarding the aftercare plan. He stated that he
planned to get an apartment where he and Merrell would stay so that Merrell could slowly
reintegrate into the family and society. Joey indicated that other family members would be
12 able to help supervise and support Merrell while Joey was working. He stated that he would
either arrange employment for Merrell with a friend or enroll him in school. Joey further
testified that he would ensure Merrell complied with any restrictions placed on his release
and that he continued to participate in therapy. In response to questioning by the circuit
court, Joey explained that Merrell would not be living in the same house as his stepmother
and half siblings at first because there was not enough room and because his stepmother
wanted him to reintegrate first.
The State called the victim’s sister, Tonya Shockley, and her mother, Eugenia
Shockley, to provide victim-impact testimony. Tonya stated that she was close in age to her
sister and that they did everything together. She testified that she was pregnant when Christa
was murdered and that Christa was very excited about being an aunt. Because Christa could
not be the maid of honor at her wedding, Tonya placed Christa’s picture on the table in
her honor. Tonya explained that she will never be able to fill the hole that was left inside
her as a result of Christa’s murder. Eugenia testified that Christa “loved everything” and
that she had lots of plans. Christa was working two jobs while also taking classes, and she
was the photographer in the family. Eugenia testified that her daughter’s death has affected
their entire family. She read letters from Christa’s two younger sisters expressing their pain
at the loss of their sister.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court considered each of the required
statutory factors and made extensive findings based on its review of the entire record. The
court then concluded that Merrell was not amenable to treatment and that public safety
required imposition of an adult sentence. The circuit court sentenced Merrell to life
13 imprisonment for the capital murder with the possibility of parole after thirty years 4 and to
ten years’ imprisonment for the aggravated robbery, with the sentences to run concurrently.
A written order granting the State’s motion to sentence Merrell as an adult was entered on
May 13, 2024, and the sentencing order was entered on May 16. Merrell timely appealed.
On appeal, Merrell argues that the circuit court erred by finding that the State proved
that he was not amenable to treatment and that public safety required the imposition of an
adult sentence of life imprisonment. He claims that the circuit court ignored the
overwhelming testimony about his rehabilitative progress and the treatment team members’
support for his release and instead focused on the egregious nature of the offense. Merrell
contends that this was improper and that we should reverse.
Once a juvenile has been designated an EJJ offender, either the juvenile or DYS may
petition the circuit court to review and modify the disposition at any time. Ark. Code Ann.
§ 9-27-507(c)(1)(A), (2)(A) (Supp. 2025). The State may also petition the circuit court at
any time to impose an adult sentence if the juvenile has violated a juvenile disposition order;
has been adjudicated delinquent or found guilty of committing a new offense; or is not
amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile system. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-507(a). If no
hearing has been conducted six months before the juvenile’s eighteenth birthday, the circuit
court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether to release the juvenile, amend or add
4 Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-104(b) (Supp. 2025) provides that a defendant who was under the age of eighteen at the time he or she committed the offense of capital murder shall be sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after serving a minimum of thirty years’ imprisonment.
14 any juvenile disposition, or impose an adult sentence. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-507(e)(1). In
making its determination, the court shall consider the following:
(A) The experience and character of the juvenile before and after the juvenile disposition, including compliance with the court’s orders;
(B) The nature of the offense or offenses and the manner in which the offense or offenses were committed;
(C) The recommendations of the professionals who have worked with the juvenile;
(D) The protection of public safety;
(E) Opportunities provided to the juvenile for rehabilitation and the juvenile’s efforts toward rehabilitation; and
(F) Victim impact evidence admitted pursuant to § 16-97-103.
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-507(e)(2). If the State seeks to impose an adult sentence, the State
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition of an adult sentence is
appropriate and that public safety requires imposition. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-507(e)(3).
Following the hearing, the court may release the juvenile, amend or add any juvenile
disposition, or exercise its discretion to impose the full range of adult sentencing available
in the criminal division of circuit court, including probation, suspended imposition of
sentence, and imprisonment. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-507(e)(4)(A). Juveniles adjudicated
delinquent for capital murder may be sentenced to any term of imprisonment, up to and
including life. Id. A circuit court may not order an absolute release of an EJJ offender who
had been adjudicated delinquent for capital murder; if release is ordered, the court shall
impose a period of probation of not less than three years. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-
507(e)(4)(D). A juvenile committed to DYS under EJJ shall not remain in the physical
15 custody of the division beyond his or her twenty-first birthday, even if the court fails to
provide a hearing before the release. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-507(e)(5)(A).
Because this is the first appeal from the imposition of an adult sentence on an EJJ
offender that this court is addressing on the merits, we must first determine the proper
standard of review to apply to the circuit court’s ruling. See State v. K.H., 2010 Ark. 172,
368 S.W.3d 46 (dismissing a prior appeal by the State from the denial of a motion to impose
an adult sentence based on a lack of jurisdiction). As required by section 9-27-507(e), the
State had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that imposition of an adult sentence
on Merrell was appropriate and that public safety required it. In other appeals involving the
preponderance-of-the-evidence burden of proof, such as an appeal from the revocation of
probation or a suspended sentence, we have applied the clearly-erroneous standard of
review. See, e.g., Crouse v. State, 2012 Ark. 442 (appeal from revocation of probation). In
K.H., supra, we explained that an appeal from an order denying a petition to impose an
adult sentence is akin to an appeal from a revocation proceeding. Appeals from an EJJ
designation are also reviewed under the clear-error standard. E.g., Merrell I, supra. We hold
that the same standard is appropriate here. See also Barton v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 117
(reviewing circuit court’s order imposing adult sentence for clear error). Accordingly, we
will not reverse the circuit court’s order imposing an adult sentence on Merrell unless it is
clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Also, because the determination of a
preponderance of the evidence turns on questions of credibility and weight to be given to
the testimony, we defer to the circuit court’s superior position in that regard. Crouse, supra.
16 As noted above, the circuit court in this case thoroughly discussed each of the six
factors required by section 9-27-507(e)(2) in its oral ruling. With regard to the first factor—
the experience and character of the juvenile before and after the juvenile disposition,
including compliance with the court’s orders—the circuit court stated that while Merrell
did not have any prior juvenile adjudications, he did exhibit a pattern of antisocial behavior
from an early age despite intensive efforts by his family and schools to provide him
treatment. The court specifically noted the testimony that Merrell’s principal felt it necessary
to check Merrell’s backpack each day for a gun and that Merrell had slapped a cell phone
out of his grandmother’s hands. The court noted that after Merrell was detained, he
continued with his disruptive behavior from 2017 to 2020 by threatening and assaulting staff
and juveniles, making a shank out of a comb, acting in a manipulative manner, and glorifying
extreme violence. The circuit court stated that from 2020 to the present, Merrell’s progress
was mixed, as he would show improvement and then regress. The court noted that he was
involved in a total of twenty-four incidents, which was “too many.” The circuit court
recognized that Merrell had made progress in recent months but characterized it as an
“eleventh-hour conversion” after the October 2023 petition to impose an adult sentence
was filed.
As to the nature of the offenses and the manner in which the offenses were
committed, the circuit court stated that capital murder and aggravated robbery are Class Y
felonies, which are the most serious felonies in Arkansas. The court emphasized that Merrell
acted alone to murder a stranger, that there was no peer influence or participation, and that
the crime was premeditated rather than impulsive. The court described the commission of
17 the crime and noted that the surveillance video showed Merrell casing the convenience
store, firing a final shot at the victim while she was writhing in agony, and then calmly
walking past the victim and pausing to stare at her as he stole items from the store. The
circuit court stated that the murder was “the most callous, coldblooded heinous act” that it
had ever seen.
Next, the circuit court discussed the third factor, which is the recommendation of
the professionals who have worked with the juvenile:
The recommendations of the professionals who have worked with him. I’m going to consider these, but I certainly take issue with them, and I’ll go into some detail about that. Dr. Jones was a contractor with DYS. He recommended release into the community. He doesn’t believe that he poses a risk to society. He has no problems with Mr. Merrell joining the military or purchasing a gun. And I’ll come back to that in a minute. Still, one of the things that was never adequately explained in this case was why DYS filed a motion to impose an adult sentence in October of 2023 and then didn’t withdraw it until January 30, 2024. That’s only three months ago. That’s obvious to me that the Department, even their own experts, are conflicted about this case. The withdrawal of the petition was greatly dependent upon the recommendations of his last therapist, Dr. Jones. The first thing that Dr. Jones said was that he treated Mr. Merrell about a year, I believe he said, but it turns out it was only nine months. The second day of the hearing his credibility took a big -- it was impacted by the news that his license was suspended, currently for two years, suspension based on a complaint of misfeasance which led to probation, probation failure, and then the two year suspension. This was not disclosed to the Court voluntarily.
Some other problems I had with Dr. Jones’ testimony --. Well, of course, I’m going to get into what Ms. Bell said. There’s a stark contrast there. But the February 3, 2023 incident about the college classes, Dr. Jones said that Ayden Merrell was accessing YouTube videos just to listen to music while studying, but Mr. Parkins said that no, it was a Discord server where students could access graphic violence and nudity. Now I don’t know that Dr. Jones was trying to mislead the Court, but what it does show me is that at the very least he didn’t do his due diligence and he didn’t investigate that. So that’s concerning. The April 27, 2024 video, again Dr. Jones said that it was his understanding that someone ran up on Mr. Merrell and that Mr. Merrell just reacted. That’s absolutely not the case. The video speaks to that. Again, I
18 don’t know that Dr. Jones -- he gave a very studied response and I’m a little suspicious of it, but regardless of that, again it just demonstrates the lack of due diligence on his part. In that video, it was very clear that Mr. Merrell was the aggressor, not once but twice, and I think that’s sort of a stress test.
These recommendations from the folks, I know that you’re asked to give, but there’s sort of a built-in bias. A bias is not necessarily something evil. It’s just that there’s a bias. There just is. And it’s because you’ve put in the work. It’s sort of like grading your own papers. You’re grading your own papers, really. You’ve put in the work. You worked with this individual. This is your project, and then you’re asked to evaluate him. And if they’re not making progress, that reflects on you. I understand that. I’m not saying it’s false necessarily, but there is a bias.
The court went on to note its concern that Dr. Jones had not watched the video of
the murder, which again related to his lack of due diligence. The circuit court next addressed
Bell’s testimony, stating that while it respected her opinion, she was also unfamiliar with the
details of the crimes. The court noticed how Bell’s countenance and testimony changed
after watching the surveillance video. The circuit court found it difficult to believe that
Merrell’s lack of remorse, as testified to by Bell, changed that drastically between when she
ended her treatment of him in 2022 to August 2023, when Dr. Jones became his therapist.
The court further noted Bell’s concerns about statements that Merrell had made about gay
people and his obsession with the military.
The fourth factor that the circuit court considered is the protection of public safety.
The court again referenced the surveillance video, noting the heinous, deliberate, and
premeditated nature of the crimes and Merrell’s calmness afterward, which the court
described as chilling. While the circuit court stated that it was taking into account Merrell’s
youth at the time of the murder, it also found that Merrell appeared to have no remorse
until he was nineteen years old. The court expressed its concern that Merrell was simply
19 “parroting what we want to hear.” With regard to Merrell’s mental health, the court stated
that the diagnosis of autism implies impulse control; however, the crimes that he committed
were planned and not impulsive or a result of peer pressure.
The circuit court next addressed the fifth factor, which is the opportunities provided
to the juvenile for rehabilitation and the juvenile’s efforts toward rehabilitation. The court
recognized the massive efforts made by Merrell’s family, grade schools, and therapists to
address his behavioral problems when he was young, none of which seemed to help. The
court found that DYS had also provided rehabilitative services for many years, but it was
only after the petition to invoke an adult sentence was filed that Merrell began to make
significant progress. The court noted its concern that this recent progress was simply
Merrell’s “survival instinct kick[ing] in” and learning as he matured that his efforts affect his
legal status.
Finally, the circuit court discussed the sixth factor, which is the victim-impact
evidence. The court stated that there was “permanent damage to the family[,]” and “a hole
inside that’s never filled.” The court found that Merrell “took the most possible from them.
And she was an outstanding young woman, outstanding.”
After considering the entire record and discussing the evidence pertinent to each of
the required factors, the circuit court concluded that an adult sentence was appropriate and
that public safety required it. The court also found that Merrell was not amenable to
treatment, specifically referencing Bell’s testimony, all of the witnesses who stated that there
were no further services to offer Merrell at DYS, and the evidence demonstrating that
Merrell did not pass recent “stress tests.”
20 In arguing that the State failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that an
adult sentence was appropriate or that public safety required it, Merrell points to the opinion
of all his treatment team members that he was rehabilitated and not a danger to the
community and to the discharge summary showing that he had completed all of his
treatment goals. He asserts that the State presented no testimony by any witnesses who
disagreed with the assessment of his treatment team. Merrell contends that the circuit court
“dismissively” determined that each member of the treatment team was biased in his favor,
rejected their professional opinions, and decided that given the egregious nature of the
underlying crime, he would serve the rest of his life in prison. He argues that the circuit
court’s credibility determinations are not beyond appellate review and that the court here
failed to properly review and consider the evidence, focusing on one factor above all others.
We cannot say that the circuit court’s ruling was clearly against the preponderance
of the evidence. Contrary to Merrell’s assertion, the court did not ignore the
recommendations of his treatment team or dismissively determine that their opinions
suffered from an inherent bias. The circuit court specifically noted the credibility issues with
regard to Dr. Jones’s testimony, such as his mischaracterization of at least two incidents
involving Merrell and his lack of due diligence in learning the details of Merrell’s crimes.
Dr. Jones was not the only DYS witness to downplay Merrell’s role in the April 2024
altercation, in which the video clearly showed that Merrell was the aggressor. Furthermore,
even crediting the treatment team’s testimony regarding Merrell’s progress, the vast majority
of his behavioral goals were met less than six months before the hearing. The circuit court
found that this “eleventh hour” progress was likely a result of the filing of the petition to
21 impose an adult sentence in October 2023 and not true progress. As stated earlier, we defer
to the circuit court’s superior position to resolve questions of credibility. Crouse, supra.
Nor did the circuit court err by placing great weight on the heinous nature of the
crimes in reaching its decision. As we have held in appeals from juvenile-transfer
proceedings, there is no requirement that the circuit court give equal weight to each
statutory factor. See, e.g., Otis v. State, 355 Ark. 590, 142 S.W.3d 615 (2004). The circuit
court here correctly recognized that Merrell did not act impulsively or as a result of peer
pressure but instead committed the crimes in a premeditated, deliberate, and callous manner.
He planned the crime by sneaking out while his family was asleep, stole a pistol and an extra
cartridge from his father’s locked shed, attempted to mask his identity by wearing a hood
and a bandana over his face, cased the convenience store to ensure that no other customers
were present, and kept track of the time so that he could return home before his father
awoke. He fired eight shots at the victim, with the final shot being fired as he approached
the victim, who was screaming for help. Merrell then calmly chose which items to steal,
paused briefly to stare at the victim’s body as he passed by her several times, discarded
evidence on his way home, and went to school the next morning as usual. As the court of
appeals held in Barton, supra, in another appeal from the imposition of an adult sentence, “a
person participating in a crime as shockingly cruel and senseless as this must be very
successful indeed in his rehabilitation efforts before it can be said that he has been
rehabilitated to the extent that the public will not be endangered by his release.” Id. at 3.
The circuit court noted the multiple incidents that Merrell was involved in during his four
years at DYS and was particularly concerned about the April 2024 incident, which occurred
22 only two weeks before the hearing and after Merrell had reportedly achieved his behavioral
goals. The court stated that this incident was a “stress test” that showed the court what could
happen if Merrell was disrespected out in public one day.
In addition to the disturbing nature of the crimes in this case, we agree with the
circuit court that the remaining factors in section 9-27-503(e)(2) also weigh in favor of the
imposition of an adult sentence. Merrell has a lengthy history of antisocial and violent
behavior, both before and after his arrest, and as the April 2024 incident shows, he remains
a danger to public safety. Despite a multitude of opportunities for rehabilitation, Merrell did
not truly engage in them until less than one year before the hearing, after a petition to impose
an adult sentence was filed and he was informed of the possibility of release. The victim’s
family also testified to the lifelong impact of Christa’s death. Based on all of the evidence in
the record, the circuit court did not clearly err by finding that Merrell was not amenable to
rehabilitation, that imposition of an adult sentence was appropriate, and that public safety
required it. We therefore affirm.
Robert M. “Robby” Golden, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Christian Harris, Sr. Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.