In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. 53358-6

Court of Appeals of Arizona

In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. 53358-6

616 P.2d 92, 126 Ariz. 417, 1980 Ariz. App. LEXIS 538

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedJuly 31, 1980

Docket2 CA-CIV 3546

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 616 P.2d 92 (In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. 53358-6) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. 53358-6, 616 P.2d 92, 126 Ariz. 417, 1980 Ariz. App. LEXIS 538 (Ark. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

HOWARD, Judge.

A juvenile court order granting the state’s petition to transfer the juvenile to adult court for prosecution is the subject of this appeal. The case concerns a 15-year-old charged with stabbing a police officer (aggravated assault). A probable cause hearing was held November 27, 1979, and the court found probable cause that the minor committed the offense. On January 14,1980, another hearing was held to determine whether the three-pronged test of Rule 14(b) was satisfied.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding that he was not amenable to treatment or rehabilitation through available facilities as required by Rule 14(b), Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. We affirm.

The juvenile court stated its reasons for finding non-amenability. It is clear that the juvenile court felt that if the allegations of the delinquency petition were found to be true, the juvenile would need to be confined in a closely supervised setting for an extended period of time in order to protect the public and to rehabilitate the juvenile. It based this conclusion on the facts surrounding the offense (the juvenile inflicted multiple stab wounds on a police officer and then kicked him in the eye), the juvenile’s lack of remorse, and his involvement in thefts, some of which occurred between the time of the probable cause hearing and the transfer hearing. The juvenile court noted that there were no juvenile facilities in the state which provided the security and supervision it believed the juvenile required.

The staff psychologist and probation officer were both against the transfer, finding [418]*418that the juvenile was amenable to treatment through available facilities. However, the juvenile court is not bound by these recommendations anymore than the trial judge is bound by the recommendations of the probation officer in a criminal proceeding in the superior court.

The fact that the juvenile had no record in juvenile court prior to the stabbing is not determinative. In the Matter of the Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. 35834-1, 20 Ariz.App. 10, 509 P.2d 1047 (1973).

We are unable to say that the juvenile court abused its discretion.

Affirmed.

HATHAWAY, C. J., concurs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

HOWARD, Judge.

A juvenile court order granting the state’s petition to transfer the juvenile to adult court for prosecution is the subject of this appeal. The case concerns a 15-year-old charged with stabbing a police officer (aggravated assault). A probable cause hearing was held November 27, 1979, and the court found probable cause that the minor committed the offense. On January 14,1980, another hearing was held to determine whether the three-pronged test of Rule 14(b) was satisfied.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding that he was not amenable to treatment or rehabilitation through available facilities as required by Rule 14(b), Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court. We affirm.

The juvenile court stated its reasons for finding non-amenability. It is clear that the juvenile court felt that if the allegations of the delinquency petition were found to be true, the juvenile would need to be confined in a closely supervised setting for an extended period of time in order to protect the public and to rehabilitate the juvenile. It based this conclusion on the facts surrounding the offense (the juvenile inflicted multiple stab wounds on a police officer and then kicked him in the eye), the juvenile’s lack of remorse, and his involvement in thefts, some of which occurred between the time of the probable cause hearing and the transfer hearing. The juvenile court noted that there were no juvenile facilities in the state which provided the security and supervision it believed the juvenile required.

The staff psychologist and probation officer were both against the transfer, finding [418]*418that the juvenile was amenable to treatment through available facilities. However, the juvenile court is not bound by these recommendations anymore than the trial judge is bound by the recommendations of the probation officer in a criminal proceeding in the superior court.

The fact that the juvenile had no record in juvenile court prior to the stabbing is not determinative. In the Matter of the Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. 35834-1, 20 Ariz.App. 10, 509 P.2d 1047 (1973).

We are unable to say that the juvenile court abused its discretion.

Affirmed.

HATHAWAY, C. J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

616 P.2d 92, 126 Ariz. 417, 1980 Ariz. App. LEXIS 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-appeal-in-pima-county-juvenile-action-no-53358-6-arizctapp-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack