Minor Child v. State of Arkansas ( 2024 )

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 477ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CR-23-609
MINOR CHILD Opinion Delivered October 9, 2024
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE WHITE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 73JV-23-12]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE CRAIG HANNAH,
APPELLEE JUDGE
MOTION GRANTED; DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
Minor Child (MC) appeals the White County Circuit Court’s order denying his
motion to dismiss the State’s petition for delinquency. On appeal, MC argues that the circuit
court erred by finding that it had jurisdiction of the delinquency petition. The State has
moved to dismiss.1 We find merit in the State’s motion, and we dismiss this appeal without
prejudice.
On January 9, 2023, the State petitioned for delinquency against MC, who was born
in January 2004. The State acknowledged that MC had turned eighteen years old in January
1
The State moved to dismiss the appeal on November 9, 2023, after MC filed his
brief. The motion was passed to this panel for consideration with the submission of the case.
After the State moved to dismiss the appeal, MC moved to certify the case for transfer to the
supreme court and to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. The supreme court
denied his motion.
2022, but it alleged that he committed three counts of rape and two counts of second-degree
sexual assault on minor victims between January 2016 and December 2018, before he
reached the age of majority.
On March 14, 2023, MC moved to dismiss the delinquency petition. He argued that
the court “had jurisdiction to hear [the] matter until [he] reached the age of 18 years, at
which time, the Juvenile Courts lost jurisdiction.”
On May 23, the State responded and opposed the dismissal. It asserted that pursuant
to Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-306(a)(1)(A) (Supp. 2023), a court may retain
jurisdiction of a juvenile delinquent up to twenty-one years of age if the juvenile committed
the delinquent act before turning eighteen.
On July 17, the court denied MC’s motion to dismiss, instead finding that it had
jurisdiction pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-306(a)(1)(A). MC appealed
to this court.
The State has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order. The State argues
that this is an interlocutory appeal and that none of the provisions of Arkansas Rule of
Appellate Procedure–Civil 2 authorizes an appeal in these circumstances. We agree.
Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-343(a) (Repl. 2020), all appeals
from juvenile court shall be made in the time and manner provided for appeals in the
Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See State v. R.H., 2009 Ark. 564. Arkansas Rule of
Appellate Procedure–Civil 2(c) states in relevant part that appeals in juvenile cases shall be
made in the same time and manner as provided for appeals from circuit court.
2
Subject to a few exceptions not applicable in this case, Rule 2(a) of the Arkansas Rules
of Appellate Procedure–Civil provides that this court has jurisdiction to review cases only
when a final order has been entered. Pitchford v. Wright, 2016 Ark. App. 111. The purpose
of the finality requirement is to avoid piecemeal litigation. K.W. v. State, 327 Ark. 205, 937
S.W.2d 658 (1997); C.M. v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 595. An order is final if it dismisses the
parties from the court, discharges them from the action, or concludes their rights to the
subject matter in controversy; the order must put the judge’s directive into execution, ending
the litigation or a separable branch of it. C.M., 2015 Ark. App. 595. Rule 2 does not
authorize an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss generally. Williams
v. McCoy, 2018 Ark. 17, 535 S.W.3d 266. Further, our supreme court has held that we
cannot decide whether the circuit court lacked jurisdiction without a final order. Henson v.
Cradduck, 2017 Ark. 317, 530 S.W.3d 847. Accordingly, because the order from which MC
has appealed is not final, we must dismiss the appeal.
MC claims that this appeal is permissible pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated
section 9-27-343(b), which provides that in delinquency cases, the petitioner may appeal only
under those circumstances that would permit the State to appeal in criminal proceedings.
He argues that if the circuit court would have granted his motion to dismiss, then the State
could have appealed. MC’s argument is without merit. Section 343(b) specifically applies to
the State. Further, a dismissal of the petition by the circuit court is not at issue here.
Motion granted; dismissed without prejudice.
HARRISON, C.J., and BARRETT, J., agree.
3
Petty Law Firm, by: D. Paul Getty and J. Michael Petty, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Christopher R. Warthen, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
4