Opinion
CASE NO. 1604013592
08-25-2016
STATE OF DELAWARE v. A---- W----- (d.o.b. --/--/99)
ORDER FOLLOWING AMENABILITY HEARING
The State of Delaware requests that this Court find A---- W----- (Respondent), age 16, to be non-amenable to the rehabilitative processes of Family Court. Respondent is currently charged with the felony of receiving stolen property. Specifically, he was charged with being a passenger in a motor vehicle that was alleged to be stolen.
A hearing on the motion was held on August 23, 2016. Present in the courtroom were: Respondent, A---- W-----; Richard Zemble, Esq., Respondent's attorney; Frank Mieczkowski, Esq., DAG; T—W-----, Mother; M----- M-------, Stepfather; Ryan Shaw, YRS probation officer; and E------ O----, Maternal Grandmother.
Analysis
In determining whether a child is amenable to the rehabilitative processes of Family Court, 10 Del. C. §1010(c) (1) requires the Court to take into account six factors:
a. Whether , in view of the age and other personal characteristics of the child , the people of Delaware may best be protected and the child may best be made a useful member of society by some form of correctional treatment which the Family Court lacks power to assign
A----, sixteen years old, has been identified as a special education student with processing issues. Before his mother's move to Pennsylvania, he attended school regularly and enthusiastically and was on the honor roll.
The Division of Family Services received seven referrals about his family between 2000 and 2014 and a treatment case was open for an unknown period of time. He is the father of a two-year-old child. Surprisingly, despite his serious involvement with the juvenile justice system at the young ages of thirteen and fourteen, and despite being identified as a special education student, no psychological evaluation is known to have been done of A----. There was no evidence presented that he fails to get along with staff or peers when he has been detained other than his release from Mould's Cottage may have been extended both times by a few days.
The people of Delaware may best be protected and A---- may best be made a useful member of society by having the charges remain in Family Court so that, if he is adjudicated on this new charge and VOP, appropriate individual and family counseling and other therapeutic services, which Family Court has the power to assign and which have not yet been offered to him can be provided to him and his family.
This factor favors finding A---- to be amenable.
b. Whether it is alleged death or serious personal injury was inflicted by the child upon anyone in the course of commission of the offense or in immediate flight therefrom
It is not alleged that death, serious injury, or any injury was inflicted by A---- in the course of the commission of the offense or in immediate flight there from. It is alleged only that he was a passenger in a car that allegedly was stolen.
This factor favors finding A---- to be amenable.
c. Whether the child has been convicted of any prior criminal offense
A---- had not been convicted but was adjudicated delinquent on February 25, 2014 of robbery 1st which was committed when he was only thirteen years old. He has a second adjudication for theft of a motor vehicle, resisting arrest, and driving without a valid driver's license on December 10, 2014, while he was still fourteen years old.
This factor would favor finding A---- to be non-amenable to Family Court but that factor is mitigated somewhat by the young age at which those offenses were committed.
d. Whether the child has previously been subjected to any form of correctional treatment by the Family Court
A---- was committed to Ferris School on each of the above two adjudications. He successfully completed the program each time. After his release the second time, probation was transferred to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. YRS received no information - in reality little to no communication at all from Pennsylvania - that A---- had not complied with his probation there.
This factor somewhat favors and somewhat disfavors finding A---- to be amenable.
e. Whether it is alleged a dangerous instrument was used by the child
No dangerous instrument is alleged to have been used by A---- in regard to this latest charge.
This factor favors finding A---- to be amenable.
f. Whether other participants in the same offense are being tried as adult offenders.
A---- has two co-defendants in regard to his new charge. One is an adult and one is a juvenile.
This factor tends to favor finding A---- amenable.
Conclusion
Because of the presumption that Family Court is the appropriate tribunal due to the fact that A---- is a juvenile and not facing a charge automatically in Superior Court, the burden of proof rests with the State to establish that A---- is not amenable to the rehabilitative processes available to the Family Court. The State has not met that burden. Balancing the factors set forth in 10 Del. C. §1010(c) (1), the Court can only conclude that A---- is amenable to the rehabilitative processes available in Family Court. Even if some services offered are duplicative of services offered when he was younger, receiving those services now that he is older and perhaps since he has had the experience of being shot, might have a greater rehabilitative effect on him.
The charge which gave rise to this hearing and the VOP complaint is scheduled for a case review on SEPTEMBER 13, 2016 AT 8:30 A.M. Bail remains at $5000 secured. If he is released, he is to remain in the State of Delaware on a charged GPS.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 8/25/16
Date Written Order Issued 8/26/16
Date Written Order Mailed
/s/ _________
BARBARA D. CROWELL, Judge