In Re: F. A., a Minor C/W 62086 ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN THE MATTER OF: F. A. A/K/A F. A., No. 62086
A MINOR,
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
FILED
Appellant, JUL 1 4 2016
vs. TRAMS K. LINDEMAN
F. A. A/K/A F. A., CLERK or
SUPREME COURT
BY
Resnondents. DEPUTY CLERK
IN THE MATTER OF: F. A. A/K/A F. A., No. 62087
A MINOR,
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Appellant,
vs.
F. A. A/K/A F. A.,
Respondents.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
These are consolidated appeals from a juvenile court order
denying the State's petitions to certify respondent, F.A., to stand trial as
an adult. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark
County; William 0. Voy, Judge.
We first address F.A.'s claim that the juvenile court's order
should be affirmed because the State failed to establish prosecutive merit.
Specifically, F.A. contends that the juvenile court erred by concluding that
the State established prosecutive merit because eyewitness testimony is
inherently unreliable and because the weapons allegedly used in the
offenses were never recovered.
"To say that there is prosecutive merit is to say that there is
probable cause to believe that the subject minor committed the charged
crime." In re Seven Minors, 99 Nev. 427, 437, 664 P.2d 947, 953 (1983),
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
l0) 1947A (eA
1G -2zoSD
disapproved of on other grounds by In re William S., 122 Nev. 432, 132
P.3d 1015 (2006); see also Sheriff v. Hodes, 96 Nev. 184, 186, 606 P.2d 178,
180 (1980) ("The finding of probable cause may be based on slight, even
marginal evidence." (internal quotation marks omitted)). "An adversary
hearing is not required, and the probable cause finding 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, 1123-24 (1984),
disapproved of on other grounds by William S., 122 Nev. at 442 n.23, 132
P.3d at 1021 n.23. The juvenile court's ruling regarding prosecutive merit
will not be overturned absent substantial error. Cf. Sheriff v. Provenza, 97
Nev. 346, 630 P.2d 265 (1981) (district court's rulingS regarding probable
cause will not be overturned absent substantial error).
Here, the juvenile court considered documentary evidence that
F.A. robbed three victims of their cell phones and one victim of his iPod.
In three of the robberies, the victims claimed that the perpetrator revealed
a handgun in his waistband, while the fourth victim claimed that the
perpetrator utilized a knife. All four victims identified F.A. in photo
lineups, and the fourth victim's iPod was turned over to police by F.A.'s
mother, who informed police F.A. had given her the iPod. Based on this
evidence, we conclude that the juvenile court did not substantially err by
determining that the charged offenses were supported by prosecutive
merit. See Wise v. State, 92 Nev. 181, 183, 547 P.2d 314, 315 (1976)
(declining to reverse a conviction for insufficient evidence based on "the
'inherent unreliability of eyewitness identification").
The State contends that the juvenile court abused its
discretion when it denied the State's petitions to certify F.A. pursuant to
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A en
NRS 62B.390(1), or discretionary certification. Specifically, the State
claims the juvenile court should not have considered F.A.'s subjective
factors, or the third category outlined in Seven Minors, because the first
two categories clearly warranted certification. See Seven Minors, 99 Nev.
at 434-35, 664 P.2d at 952. Additionally, the State argues that even if the
juvenile court properly considered the subjective factors, it impermissibly
denied the certification petitions solely because of F.A.'s amenability to
treatment in the juvenile system. Id. at 439-40, 664 P.2d at 955. "[T]he
[juvenile] court retains broad discretion in making discretionary
certification decisions in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Seven
Minors." In re William S., 122 Nev. 432, 441-42, 132 P.3d 1015, 1021
(2006). "An abuse of discretion occurs if the [juvenile] court's decision is
arbitrary or capricious or if it exceeds the bounds of law or reason." In re
Eric A.L., 123 Nev. 26, 33, 153 P.3d 32, 36-37 (2007) (alteration in
original) (quoting Jackson v. State, 117 Nev. 116, 120, 17 P.3d 998, 1000
(2001)).
Having considered the parties' arguments and reviewed the
record before this court, we conclude the State has failed to demonstrate
that the juvenile court arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion or
that its decision to deny the petitions to certify F.A. exceeded the bounds
of law or reason. See generally Bradley v. State, 109 Nev. 1090, 1094-95,
864 P.2d 1272, 1275 (1993) (discussing that it is generally a court's written
order, as opposed to any oral statement, that governs). After multiple
hearings and careful consideration, the juvenile court determined that
neither of the first two categories outlined in Seven Minors clearly
compelled certification; rather, it balanced all three categories from Seven
Minors and concluded that community safety and public interest were best
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(a) 1947A ce,
served by retaining F.A. in the juvenile system. See In re Eric A.L., 123
Nev. at 34, 153 P.3d at 37 (recognizing that the juvenile court may, in
examining the third factor, consider a juvenile's amenability to treatment).
We discern no abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the juvenile court AFFIRMED.
etkis
Parraguirre
)
Hardesty Douglas
L./ , J. J.
Cherro Saitta
rPitent
eku , J.
Gibbons Pickering
cc: Hon. William 0. Voy, District Judge, Family Court Division
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
Clark County Public Defender
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A