Opinion
No. 68070
03-16-2016
IN THE MATTER OF: D. H., A MINOR. D. H., Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a juvenile court order certifying appellant D.H. to stand trial as an adult. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; William O. Voy, Judge.
D.H. claims the juvenile court erred by determining prosecutive merit supported the charges for counts 1-5 because there were identification issues. D.H. also claims the juvenile court erred by determining prosecutive merit supported the deadly weapon enhancement for counts 2, 3, and 21.
Prosecutive merit is analogous to the grand jury indictment standard and requires a finding of probable cause to believe that the minor committed the charged offenses. In the Matter of Seven Minors, 99 Nev. 427, 437, 664 P.2d 947, 953 (1983). "The finding of probable cause may be based on slight, even 'marginal' evidence because it does not involve a determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused." Sheriff, Washoe Cty. v. Hodes, 96 Nev. 184, 186, 606 P.2d 178, 180 (1980) (internal citations omitted). The determination of probable cause "may be based on evidence taken from the petition, sworn investigative reports, witnesses' affidavits, police affidavits, or other informal but reliable evidence." In re Three Minors, 100 Nev. 414, 418, 684 P.2d 1121, 1124 (1984), disapproved of on other grounds by Matter of William S., 122 Nev. 432, 132 P.3d 1015 (2006).
Having reviewed the charges, we conclude that there was prosecutive merit to support the charges.
Next, D.H. claims the juvenile court erred in its application of the transfer matrix set forth in Seven Minors. D.H. asserts the juvenile court did not thoroughly consider his subjective factors and, had the court properly considered them, retention would have been supported. He further asserts the court should have recognized that his acts, although extremely juvenile, were not heinous and egregious. D.H. contends that this, combined with his minimal delinquency record, supported retention, and the goal of public safety could have been achieved through treatment in the juvenile system.
Adult certification may be based on either the seriousness of the offenses or a juvenile's past adjudications alone; alternatively, in close cases, the court may consider a juvenile's personal subjective factors, in conjunction with other factors. In re William S., 122 Nev. at 440-41, 132 P.3d at 1021; Seven Minors, 99 Nev. at 434-35, 664 P.2d at 952. The juvenile court has "broad discretion in making discretionary certification decisions in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Seven Minors." In re William S., 122 Nev. at 442, 132 P.3d at 1021.
The juvenile court's written order indicates that the court considered all three factors, including D.H.'s subjective factors. The court found that, although the offenses were not heinous and egregious, discretionary certification was warranted based on the nature and seriousness of the offenses and because the subjective factors did not outweigh the nature and seriousness of the offenses. The court further determined that D.H. was the principal actor in the robbery charges and found that public safety would best be served by transferring D.H. to the adult system. The record indicates the juvenile court adequately considered the relevant factors and we cannot conclude that its decision to grant the State's certification petition was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the juvenile court AFFIRMED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Silver cc: Hon. William O. Voy, District Judge, Family Court Division
Clark County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk