State v. Watkins , 423 P.3d 830 ( 2018 )

FIITE \
IN CLERKS OFFICE
This opinion was fiied for record
mrrsuE court,state of washinqtqn
/IDG ] 6 im at on
■^1-AAA kjAAJ^i : ^
GMIEFJUS7KE c:^ Vepor
SUSAN L CARLSON
Supreme COURT clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, NO. 94973-5
Respondent,
V. EN BANC
TYLER WILLIAM WATKINS,
Filed: AUG 1 6 2018
Appellant.
FAIRHURST, C.J.—Sixteen year old Tyler William Watkins was charged
with first degree burglary in adult court pursuant to former ROW 13.04.030(1)
(2009), amended by Laws of 2018, chapter 162, section 1.^ Former RCW
13.04.030(1) (2009), part of the Basic Juvenile Court Act (BJCA), provided that
juvenile courts must automatically decline jurisdiction over 16 and 17 year olds
' The 2018 amendment to RCW 13.04.030(l)(e)(v)(D) removed first degree burglary and
several other ^crimes from the list of enumerated offenses that would automatically subject a
juvenile offender to adult court jurisdiction. The amendment did not moot the constitutional issue
presented in this case because this amendment does not apply retroactively and because the
amendment did not remove the automatic decline component of former RCW 13.04.030(1)
(2009). The amendment narrowed the scope of juvenile offenders who would be charged
automatically in adult court but still requires juvenile courts to automatically decline jurisdiction
over juveniles charged with certain violent offenses. The amendment has no bearing on our
resolution of this constitutional issue.
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
charged with enumerated offenses. Watkins argues that his due process rights were
violated because the automatic decline component of former RCW 13.04.030(1)
(2009) applied without him first having a hearing on whether the juvenile court
should retain jurisdiction. As we previously did in In re Boot, 130 Wn.2d 553, 925
P.2d 964 (1996)(upholding former RCW 13.04.030(1)(1994) against substantive
and procedural due process challenges), we again hold that automatic decline does
not violate due process because juveniles do not have a constitutional right to be
tried in juvenile court. We affirm the conviction.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Watkins was charged with one count of first degree burglary based on
information that he and his younger brother broke into the victim's home and stole
nine firearms when the victim was gone. Watkins' fingerprints matched those
found at the scene of the crime, and a search of Watkins' home revealed three of
the nine firearms that were stolen in the burglary.
Watkins was 16 years old at the time he was charged and he had a prior
felony conviction for theft of a firearm. The information was filed in superior court
pursuant to former RCW 13.04.030(l)(e)(v)(D) (2009), which required the
juvenile court to automatically decline jurisdiction over a 16 or 17 year old with a
prior felony conviction who was subsequently charged with first degree burglary.
Before trial, Watkins filed a motion objecting to automatic transfer of his case to
-2-
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
superior court, arguing that automatic decline violates federal due process; the
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and article I, section 14 of
the Washington Constitution (prohibiting cruel punishment). The trial court denied
the motion on the basis that it was bound by this court's determination in Boot, 130
Wn.2d at 557-58.
Watkins stipulated to a bench trial on agreed documentary evidence and was
found guilty as charged. Accepting the parties' recommendation, the trial court
sentenced Watkins to 16 months in prison and 18 months on community
supervision. Watkins appealed, and we granted direct review.
II. ISSUES
A. Does a juvenile court's automatic declination of jurisdiction under
former RCW 13.04.030(1) (2009) violate a juvenile defendant's procedural or
substantive due process rights?
B. Has Boot's substantive due process holding been abrogated by
subsequent decisions ofthis court or the United States Supreme Court?
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The constitutionality of a statute is reviewed de novo. State v. Jorgenson,
179 Wn.2d 145, 150, 312 P.3d 960 (2013). The party challenging the
constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of proving the statute is
unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Leatherman, 100 Wn. App.
-3 -
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
318, 321, 997 P.2d 929(2000). If possible, the court will construe a statute so as to
render it constitutional. Jorgenson, 179 Wn.2d at 150.
IV. ANALYSIS
Watkins contends that former RCW 13.04.030(1)(2009) is unconstitutional
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.^
Specifically, Watkins argues that automatic decline violates procedural due process
by depriving him of his right to a hearing^ in juvenile court.He also argues that
automatic decline violates substantive due process by depriving him of his right to
be punished in accordance with his level of culpability. Watkins and amici
(Juvenile Law Center, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, and others)
make numerous policy arguments in favor of prosecuting all juveniles in juvenile
^ Watkins does not invoke the due process protections of the Washington Constitution.
^ This hearing is sometimes referred to as a hearing" because of the United States
Supreme Court's decision in Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 566-67, 86 S. Ct. 1045, 16 L.
Ed. 2d 84 (1966), which laid out the relevant factors a juvenile court must consider before
exercising its discretion to assign adult court jurisdiction. See, e.g.. United States v. Bland, 153
U.S. App. D.C. 254, 472 F.2d 1329, 1344 n.8 (1972) (Wright, J., dissenting) (using the term
''Kent hearing").
^ Watkins attempts to bolster his argument by pointing out that several other states have
banned automatic decline statutes, including Delaware, Nevada, Missouri, and Hawaii. Hughes
V. State, 653 A.2d 241, 252 (Del. 1994)(Fourteenth Amendment and state constitution); In re
William M., 124 Nev. 1150, 1152, 196 P.3d 456 (2008) (Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.031; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 571-22. However, some of these
states removed automatic decline procedures by statutory amendment. Only the Delaware
Supreme Court case actually supports Watkins' argument that the federal constitution provides
the right to a Kent hearing. Hughes, 653 A.2d 241. The statute in Hughes automatically
transferred juvenile felony cases to adult court if the juvenile turned 18 before the date of
adjudication. Id. at 247. Concerned that prosecutors could strategically delay the adjudication of
17 year olds in order to subject them to adult court jurisdiction, the court said that juveniles had a
constitutional right to a hearing that would consider "the nature of the ojfense rather than the
nature of the charge.'" Id. at 251. Here, former RCW 13.04.030(1)(2009)took into consideration
-4-
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
court^ but fail to show that a Kent hearing in juvenile court is required by the
United States Constitution under this particular statutory scheme. See Kent v.
United States, 383 U.S. 541, 557, 86 S. Ct. 1045, 16 L. Ed. 2d 84 (1966). The
Washington State Legislature created our juvenile court system and therefore has
the power to define its jurisdiction. ROW 13.04.021. There is no constitutional
right to be tried in juvenile court and, hence, no constitutional right to a Kent
hearing before being tried in adult court. Boot, 130 Wn.2d at 569-72.
Watkins also contends that this court's decision in Boot, which upheld the
constitutionality of former RCW 13.04.030(1)(1994) against due process. Eighth
Amendment, and equal protection challenges, has been abrogated by Eighth
Amendment decisions of both this court and the United States Supreme Court.
However, Boot's reasoning is sound, and its due process holdings have not been
undermined by subsequent Eighth Amendment decisions. Automatic decline does
not implicate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual
both the nature of the offense and the nature of the charge. Thus, the persuasive value ofHughes
is severely limited.
^ Watkins and amici argue, among other things, that juveniles transferred to the adult
system "reoffend more quickly and are more likely to engage in violent crimes after release than
youths processed in the juvenile justice system." Jason J. Washbum, et ah. Psychiatric Disorders
among Detained Youths: A Comparison of Youths Processed in Juvenile Court and Adult
Criminal Court, 59 PSYCHIATRIC Servs. 965, 972 (2008). They also argue that juveniles are less
likely to receive age-appropriate treatment and education in adult facilities because adult
corrections personnel lack the specialized training needed to treat juveniles' mental health issues.
Campaign for Youth Justice, The Consequences Aren't Minor; The Impact of Trying
Youth as Adults and Strategies for Reform 7 (2007), http://www.justicepolicy
•org/research/l965 [https://perma.cc./ZT9A-A26R].
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
punishment because adult courts have discretion to depart from standard sentence
ranges to avoid excessive punishment ofjuveniles. See State v. Houston-Sconiers,
188 Wn.2d 1, 21, 391 P.3d 409(2017).^
A. Former RCW 13.04.030(1) (2009) does not deprive Watkins of any due
process right because there is no constitutional right to be tried in juvenile
court
Watkins contends that due process requires a Kent hearing before a juvenile
court may decline jurisdiction over a juvenile charged with one of the offenses
enumerated in former RCW 13.04.030(1) (2009). Juveniles charged with crimes
have a right to procedural due process. re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 30-31, 87 S. Ct.
1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967). "[T]he Due Process Clause provides that certain
substantive rights—life, liberty, and property—cannot be deprived except pursuant
to constitutionally adequate procedures." Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill,
470 U.S. 532, 541, 105 S. Ct. 1487, 84 L. Bd. 2d 494 (1985). Due process '"is not
a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and
circumstances.'" Cafeteria & Rest. Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy, 367
U.S. 886, 895, 81 S. Ct. 1743,6 L. Bd. 2d 1230 (1961){cydotmg Joint Anti-Fascist
Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 162-63, 71 S. Ct. 624, 95 L. Bd. 817
^ Watkins also argues that if the juvenile court had held a hearing to determine whether to
assign juvenile or adult court jurisdiction, the juvenile court would have assigned juvenile court
jurisdiction. However, this argument has no bearing on the constitutionality of former RCW
13.04.030(1)(2009), and this court lacks a record sufficient to determine the outcome of a Kent
hearing. Therefore, we do not reach this issue.
6-
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
(1951)(Frankfurter, J., concurring)). "[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such
procedural protections as the particular situation demands." Morrissey v. Brewer,
408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S. Ct. 2593, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1972). Compliance with
procedural due process requires the court to identify the private interest affected by
the official action, the risk of erroneous deprivation, the probable value of
additional safeguards, and the State's interests. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319,
335, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976).
'"[TJhere is no constitutional right to be tried in a juvenile court.'" Boot, 130
Wn.2d at 571 (alteration in original)(quoting State v. Dixon, \ 14 Wn.2d 857, 860,
792 P.2d 137 (1990)); State v. Maynard, 183 Wn.2d 253, 259, 351 P.3d 159(2015); In re Pers. Restraint ofDalluge, 152 Wn.2d 772, 783 n.8, 100 P.3d 279(2004); State v. Oreiro, 73 Wn. App. 868, 873, 871 P.2d 666 (1994); State v.
Sandomingo, 39 Wn. App. 709, 711, 695 P.2d 592(1985); State v. Sharon,33 Wn.
App. 491, 494, 655 P.2d 1193 (1982) aff'd, 100 Wn.2d 230, 668 P.2d 584(1983); State v. Hodges,28 Wn. App. 902, 904, 626 P.2d 1025 (1981). And "the
right [to a Kent hearing] attaches only if a court is given statutory discretion to
assign juvenile or adult court jurisdiction." State v. Salavea, 151 Wn.2d 133, 140,
86 P.3d 125 (2004); Boot, 130 Wn.2d at 570.
The Washington State Legislature created the juvenile court system by
enacting the BJCA. RCW 13.04.021. The BJCA provides that the juvenile court
-7-
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all proceedings relating to juvenile
offenses—^but requires the juvenile court to automatically decline jurisdiction over
16 and 17 year olds charged with an enumerated offense.^ RCW
13.04.030(l)(e)(v). Only an adult court may preside over such proceedings. Id. We
upheld the constitutionality of automatic decline in Boot. 130 Wn.2d at 557-58.^
This court will reject its prior holdings only on a clear showing that an established
rule is incorrect and harmful. State v. Otton, 185 Wn.2d 673, 678, 374 P.3d 1108(2016).
In Boot, two 16 year old juvenile defendants were charged with violent
crimes and prosecuted in adult criminal court pursuant to former RCW
13.04.030(l)(e) (1994). 130 Wn.2d at 558-60. Defendants challenged the
constitutionality of automatic decline under a variety of different theories.
^ Former RCW 13.04.030(2009) provides, in pertinent part:
(1) Except as provided in this section, the juvenile courts in this state shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction over all proceedings:
(e) Relating to juveniles alleged or found to have committed offenses,
traffic or civil infractions, or violations as provided in
RCW 13.40.020 through 13.40.230, unless:
(v) The juvenile is sixteen or seventeen years old on the date the alleged
offense is committed and the alleged offense is:
(D)Burglary in the first degree committed on or after July 1, 1997, and the
juvenile has a criminal history consisting of one or more prior felony or
misdemeanor offenses.
® The D.C. Circuit upheld a similar statute against a due process challenge in Bland, All
P.2d at 1335-36 (holding that a statute requiring 16 and 17 year old juveniles charged with a
felony offense to be charged in adult court does not violate due process).
-8-
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
including that it violated the defendants' due process rights and the Eighth
Amendment. Id. at 569-72. With regard to the procedural due process challenge,
this court held that there is no constitutional right to be tried in a juvenile court and
the statute does not deprive the defendants "of any constitutionally protected right
merely by conferring adult criminal court jurisdiction over them without a
hearing." Id. at 571. This court held that automatic decline did not violate
substantive due process because it did not deprive juveniles of their right to be
punished in accordance with their degree of culpability. Id. at 572. Regarding the
Eighth Amendment challenge, we held that vesting adult court jurisdiction over a
juvenile without a hearing does not violate the Eighth Amendment because adult
court jurisdiction is not punishment in and of itself. Id. at 569. "The Eighth
Amendment question will not ordinarily be ripe for adjudication until [the
defendants] are actually sentenced." Id.
Watkins argues that the Supreme Court's holding in Kent, which was
decided 30 years before Boot, is inconsistent with automatic decline and
establishes a constitutional right to a hearing before a juvenile is tried in adult
court. In Kent, 16 year old Morris Kent was arrested after a home invasion, rape,
and robbery. 383 U.S. at 543. He was charged in juvenile court under a statute
requiring that juvenile courts have exclusive jurisdiction over juvenile offenders.
Id. at 546. The statute allowed the juvenile court to transfer jurisdiction to adult
-9-
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
court after compliance with procedural safeguards and a full investigation into the
facts of the case. Id. at 546 n.4, 565-68. Kent's lawyer moved for a full
investigation under the statute, but the juvenile court ignored the motion and
transferred Kent's case to adult court without an investigation or hearing. Id. at
546.
The Supreme Court held that the trial court's failure to follow the statutory
procedures, state the reasons for transfer, and hold a hearing required reversal of
the juvenile court's order. Id. at 557-63. "[Tjhere is no place in our system of law
for reaching a result of such tremendous consequences without ceremony—without
hearing, without effective assistance of counsel, without a statement of reasons."
Id. at 554.
Careful consideration of the statutory framework underlying the Kent
decision suggests that Kenfs holding is limited to circumstances where a juvenile
court has statutory discretion to retain or transfer jurisdiction.^ The statute in Kent
provided the juvenile court with jurisdiction over all juvenile proceedings and the
discretion to waive jurisdiction over a particular class ofjuvenile defendants. In
® The Supreme Court discussed automatic adult court statutes in a recent decision and
made no indication that the statutes are unconstitutional:
[M]any States use mandatory transfer systems: A juvenile of a certain age who
has committed a specific offense will be tried in adult court, regardless of any
individualized circumstances. Of the 29 relevant jurisdictions, about half place at
least some juvenile homicide offenders in adult court automatically, with no
apparent opportunity to seek transfer to juvenile court.
Miller V. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460,487, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407(2012).
The statute in Kent provided:
- 10-
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
contrast, former RCW 13.04.030(1) (2009) precludes our juvenile courts from
presiding over a particular class of juveniles. Kenfs hearing requirement makes
sense in the context of the D.C. statute because the juvenile court was vested with
discretion to make a jurisdictional decision. But a hearing requirement would be
absurd under Washington law because our juvenile court is statutorily precluded
from presiding over this type of case. Boot, 130 Wn.2d at 563 ("The statute does
not contemplate declination hearings, and they would serve no purpose in light of
the legislative decision to vest exclusive original jurisdiction in the adult criminal
court."). Thus, Kenf^ holding must be limited to circumstances where a juvenile
court has statutory authority to hear a particular case. Because Kent is
distinguishable on statutory grounds, its holding has no bearing on the
constitutionality offormer RCW 13.04.030(1)(2009).
Resolving the procedural due process issue requires analysis ofthree factors:
(1) the private interest that will be affected by the official action;(2)the risk of an
erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used and the
probable value, if any, of additional safeguards; and (3)the government's interest.
'"If a child sixteen years of age or older is charged with an offense whieh
would amount to a felony in the case of an adult, or any ehild charged with an
offense which if committed by an adult is punishable by death or life
imprisonment, the judge may, after full investigation, waive jurisdiction and order
such child held for trial under the regular proeedure of the court which would
have jurisdietion of such offense if committed by an adult; or such other court
may exercise the powers eonferred upon the juvenile court in this subchapter in
conducting and disposing of such cases.'"
383 U.S. at 547-48 (quoting former D.C. CODE § 11-914(1947)).
- 11 -
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
including the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute
procedures would entail. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335-36.
Regarding the private interest factor, Watkins has a reasonable interest in
remaining in juvenile court because juvenile court carries with it the potential for
lighter punishment. RCW 13.40.300. However, Watkins does not have a
constitutional right to be tried in juvenile court. See, e.g., Dixon, 114 Wn.2d at 860.
Regarding the erroneous deprivation factor, the risk that automatic decline will
erroneously deprive Watkins of his interest in juvenile court is low because there is
no discretion involved in the declination of jurisdiction—Watkins was either
charged with an enumerated offense or he was not. Former RCW 13.04.030(1)
(2009). The only discretion involved in the automatic decline process lies in the
hands of the prosecutor, who will sometimes have the discretion to charge a
defendant with an enumerated offense triggering automatic decline. These
charging decisions are unlikely to erroneously deprive Watkins of his interest in
juvenile court because criminal charges must be supported by probable cause. State
V. Rice, 174 Wn.2d 884, 889, 279 P.3d 849 (2012) ("[T]he legislature checks
prosecutors ... by defining the particular acts and circumstances that may warrant
criminal punishment . . . and the judiciary checks . . . prosecutors by reviewing
probable cause.").
- 12
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
A Kent hearing has no value as an additional safeguard here because,
regardless of the outcome of a Kent hearing, the juvenile court cannot exercise
jurisdiction over Watkins' case. Former RCW 13.04.030(l)(e)(v)(D)(2009). Thus,
Watkins' argument that due process requires a Kent hearing in juvenile court is
unconvincing. Boot, 130 Wn.2d at 571; Salavea, 151 Wn.2d at 140 ("[T]he right
[to a Kent hearing] attaches only if a court is given statutory discretion to assign
juvenile or adult court jurisdiction.").
With regard to the government interest factor, the State has a legitimate
interest in deterring violent crime, and this interest is furthered by the threat of
harsher punishment in the adult system. Requiring a court to conduct a Kent
hearing under these circumstances would place an unnecessary burden on judicial
resources because the juvenile court is statutorily precluded from hearing this case.
Former RCW 13.04.030(1)(2009). Having weighed the Mathews factors, we hold
that automatic decline comports with procedural due process.
Watkins' argument that automatic decline violates substantive due process
because it deprives him of his right to be sentenced in accordance with his
culpability is also unconvincing. Under Houston-Sconiers, adult courts have
discretion to consider the mitigating qualities of youth and sentence below the
standard range in accordance with a defendant's culpability. 188 Wn.2d at 21. The
- 13 -
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
automatic decline component offormer RCW 13.04.030(1)(2009) does not violate
substantive due process.
B. The substantive due process holding in Boot has not been abrogated by
subsequent decisions ofthis court or the United States Supreme Court
Watkins argues that our holding in Boot regarding substantive due process
has been abrogated by this court's holding in Houston-Sconiers and several
Supreme Court cases: Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 479, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183
L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012)(holding that the Eighth Amendment requires individualized
sentencing for juveniles convicted of murder facing a potential sentence of life
without parole); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569-75, 125 S. Ct. 1183, 161 L.
Ed. 2d 1 (2005)(holding that the Eighth Amendment precludes the death penalty
for juveniles); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 62, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 176 L. Ed. 2d
825 (2010) (holding that the Eighth Amendment precludes life imprisonment
without parole for a juvenile who did not commit homicide); J.D.B. v. North
Carolina, 564 U.S. 261, 131 S. Ct. 2394, 180 L. Ed. 2d 310 (2011)(holding that
youth is a relevant factor in assessing whether a reasonable person would believe
he or she is in custody under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16
L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966)). With the exception of J.D.B., each of these cases was
decided on Eighth Amendment grounds and prohibits juveniles from receiving the
- 14-
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
harshest sentences—death, mandatory life without parole, and life without parole
for a nonhomicide offense."
This line of cases emphasized the principle that juveniles are
developmentally different from adults and that these differences are relevant to
juvenile defendants' constitutional rights. This principle is supported by a
substantial body of developmental research and neuroscience demonstrating
significant psychological differences between juveniles and adults. See, e.g.,
Graham, 560 U.S. at 68 ("developments in psychology and brain science continue
to show fundamental differences between juvenile and adult minds"). Specifically,
research shows that "'children have a lack of maturity and an underdeveloped
sense of responsibility, leading to recklessness, impulsivity, and heedless risk-
taking.'" Montgomery v. Louisiana, U.S. , 136 S. Ct. 718, 733, 193 L. Ed.
2d 599(2016)(internal quotation marks omitted)(quoting Miller, 567 U.S. at 471).
"In J.D.B., the Supreme Court held that a juvenile's age properly informs the Miranda
custody analysis if the officer knew or should have known the juvenile's age. J.D.B., 564 U.S. at
271-72. "We have observed that children 'generally are less mature and responsible than
adults,' [and] that they 'often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and
avoid choices that could be detrimental to them.'" Id. at 272 (citations omitted)(quoting Belotti
V. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 635, 99 S. Ct. 3035, 61 L. Ed. 2d 797 (1979) (plurality opinion)).
"Addressing the specific context of police interrogation, we have observed that events that
'would leave a man cold and unimpressed can overawe and overwhelm a lad in his early teens.'"
Id (quoting Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596, 599, 68 S. Ct. 302, 92 L. Ed. 224 (1948)(plurality
opinion)). The Court's holding in J.D.B. indicates that the principle of treating youthful
defendants differently than adults is properly applied in the due process context where a youthful
defendant's subjective mental state is a critical part of the constitutional analysis. Resolving the
question of whether former RCW 13.04.030(1)(2009) is constitutional does not require us to
analyze the subjective mental state of a youthful defendant. Therefore, J.D.B. does not guide our
resolution of this issue.
- 15 -
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
Juveniles are also highly susceptible to '"negative influences and outside
pressures,'" and have limited "'contro[l] over their own environment.'" Miller, 567
U.S. at 471 (alteration in original) (quoting Roper, 543 U.S. at 569). Youthful
offenders have a greater capacity for rehabilitation than adults because a child's
character is '"not as well formed'" as an adult's and "'a greater possibility exists
that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed.'" Graham, 560 U.S. at 68
(quoting Roper, 543 U.S. at 569-70). The Supreme Court has held that these
developmental characteristics indicate that youthful defendants are generally less
culpable than their adult counterparts. Roper, 543 U.S. at 570. It follows naturally
that any constitutional analysis weighing the culpability or decision-making skills
of a youthful defendant should take youthflilness into account.
We addressed the diminished culpability of youthful defendants in Houston-
Sconiers, where we held that the Eighth Amendment gives trial courts discretion to
sentence juveniles below the standard sentencing range because "children are
different." 188 Wn.2d at 9. In that case, two juvenile offenders, ages 16 and 17,
were charged with a host of crimes relating to a Halloween robbery that brought
them automatically into adult court under former RCW 13.04.030(l)(e)(v)(C)
(2009). The trial court noted that it had no discretion to sentence the juveniles
below the standard range and sentenced them to 312 and 372 months, respectively.
Id. at 12-13. The defendants appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. Id. at 13.
- 16-
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
In accordance with Miller, we held that "sentencing courts must have complete
discretion to consider mitigating circumstances associated with the youth of any
juvenile defendant, even in the adult criminal justice system, regardless of whether
the juvenile is there following a decline hearing or not." Id. at 21. We affirmed the
Court of Appeals and explained that "[tjrial courts must consider mitigating
qualities of youth at sentencing and must have discretion to impose any sentence
below the otherwise applicable [Sentencing Reform Act of 1981, chapter 9.94A
RCW,] range and/or sentence enhancements." Id. We declined to address the
validity of automatic decline under former RCW 13.04.030(1) (2009). Id. at 27
n.ll.
Our reasoning in Houston-Sconiers affirms rather than undermines our
holding in Boot. Houston-Sconiers and Miller were concerned with the "choice
between extremes" that judges face when determining whether to assign juvenile
or adult court jurisdiction. Miller, 567 U.S. at 488. But Washington no longer faces
a choice between extremes because this court declared in Houston-Sconiers that
trial courts have discretion to sentence juveniles below the applicable sentencing
range in accordance with their culpability. 188 Wn.2d at 21; see State v. O'Dell,
183 Wn.2d 680, 689, 358 P.3d 359 (2015) (holding that adult courts may also
consider the youthful nature of young adults as a mitigating factor at sentencing).
Put simply, automatic decline does not violate a juvenile defendant's substantive
- 17-
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
due process right to be punished in accordance with his or her culpability because
adult courts can take into account the "mitigating qualities of youth at sentencing."
Houston-Sconiers, 188 Wn.2d at 21.
Watkins contends ihsA. Houston-Sconiers, Miller, Roper, and Graham require
more than simply taking into account a defendant's youthfulness at sentencing—^he
argues that they establish a substantive due process right to a Kent hearing before
being transferred to adult court. This argument lacks merit. The principle that
juveniles are developmentally different from adults factors into a court's decision
regarding a youthful defendant's culpability, like in Roper, Miller, and Graham, or
a youthful defendant's subjective mental state, like in J.D.B. That principle does
not factor into our determination of whether a jurisdictional statute like former
RCW 13.04.030 (2009) is constitutional because resolving this issue does not
require us to assess a youthful defendant's culpability or subjective mental state.
To resolve this issue we need decide only whether the legislature has the authority
to define the scope of juvenile court jurisdiction. The answer is yes—^the
legislature can define the scope of juvenile court jurisdiction because the
legislature itself created the juvenile court system and there is no constitutional
right to be tried in juvenile court. RCW 13.04.021; Boot, 130 Wn.2d at 571;
Maynard, 183 Wn.2d at 259; Dalluge, 152 Wn.2d at 783 n.8; Oreiro, 73 Wn. App.
- 18-
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
at 873; Sandomingo, 39 Wn. App. at 711; Sharon, 33 Wn. App. at 494; Hodges, 28
Wn. App. at 904.
V. CONCLUSION
This court already considered the constitutionality of former ROW
13.04.030(1)(1994) in Boot and held that automatic decline did not violate due
process. 130 Wn.2d at 571-72. The reasoning in Boot is sound and has not been
undermined by subsequent decisions of this court or the Supreme Court. We
therefore affirm the trial court's ruling that the automatic decline component of
former RCW 13.04.030(1)(2009)does not violate due process.
19-
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
^ Iaaaaj" ^
CUR:
-20-
State V. Watkins, No, 94973-5
(Yu, J., dissenting)
No. 94973-5
YU,J.(dissenting) — This case presents the opportunity to take a fresh look
at Washington's auto-decline statute, former RCW 13.04.030(1)(2009), which
requires certain accused juvenile offenders be removed from our juvenile court's
jurisdiction without the exercise of any judicial discretion or consideration of the
offender's individual circumstances.' In light of what we know and embrace
regarding adolescent behavior, I would hold that before a juvenile is transferred to
adult court there must be a hearing where a juvenile court judge considers whether
proceeding in adult court is appropriate in the particular juvenile's case.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
'"Decline" is a misnomer because it implies that juvenile court had jurisdiction over the
youth and then chose not to exercise it. In fact, an auto-decline statute entirely strips juvenile
court of its jurisdiction over the youth; there is no jurisdiction to decline.
1
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
(Yu, J., dissenting)
ANALYSIS
Juvenile courts are divisions of the superior courts, created by statute, and a
feature of Washington law since early statehood. RCW 13.04.021(1); State v.
S.J.C., 183 Wn.2d 408,415,352 P.3d 749(2015). Whereas adult courts are
punitive by design,juvenile courts aim to both rehabilitate youth and hold them
accountable in a manner that is consistent with their developmental stage. S.J.C.,
183 Wn.2d at 422. Reflecting their differing purposes,juvenile courts afford youth
rights, processes, and services that are not available in adult courts.
The current statutory scheme dictates which accused juvenile offenders have
the right to be charged in juvenile court and which must automatically be declined
to adult court based on their age and the charges.^ RCW 13.04.030. While we
upheld the constitutionality of auto-decline in In re Boot, 130 Wn.2d 553, 571,925
P.2d 964(1996), this case presents the opportunity to revisit that holding.
It is well established that when a statute provides juvenile courts with
discretion to transfer a juvenile to adult court, this "critically important"
determination cannot be made without an opportunity for a hearing. Kent v. United
^ Pursuant to former RCW 13.04.030(l)(e)(v)(2009), a juvenile offender who is at least
16 years old on the date of the alleged offense is automatically excluded from juvenile court for
certain alleged offenses. It is undisputed that in this case Tyler William Watkins was at least 16
years old on the date of the offense, and he was charged with one count of burglary in the first
degree. Therefore, pursuant to RCW 13.04.030(l)(e)(v)(D), the superior court had exclusive
original jurisdiction and Watkins had no statutory right to be tried in juvenile court.
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
(Yu, J., dissenting)
States, 383 U.S. 541, 556, 86 S. Ct. 1045, 16 L. Ed. 2d 84(1966); State v. Salavea,
151 Wn.2d 133, 140, 86 P.3d 125 (2004). At the hearing, a juvenile court judge
considers factors such as the seriousness ofthe alleged offense, the juvenile's prior
record, home life, and maturity. Kent, 383 U.S. at 566-67; State v. Williams, 75
Wn.2d 604, 606-07, 453 P.2d 418 (1969), overruled in part on other grounds by
McRae v. State, 88 Wn.2d 307, 559 P.2d 563 (1977). In Boot, we held that no such
hearing is required when the statute mandates certain classes of accused juvenile
offenders be automatically declined to adult court without the opportunity for the
exercise ofjudicial discretion. 130 Wn.2d at 571. I believe it is time to overrule
Boot because its substantive due process analysis rests on an assumption we now
know to be false in light of new evidence and its application is incorrect and
harmful.
The court in Boot relied on the prevailing assumption at the time that
juveniles are not categorically less culpable than adults except when the death
penalty is imposed. Id. at 571-72. Case law from the United States Supreme Court
and this court provided legal support for the court's conclusion. Id. (citing to
Stanford v. Kentucky,492 U.S. 361, 109 S. Ct. 2969, 106 L. Ed. 2d 306(1989),
overruled by Roper v. Simmons,543 U.S. 551, 125 S. Ct. 1183, 161 L. Ed. 2d 1(2005), to support the proposition juveniles are not categorically less culpable than
adults). And because the juveniles in Boot had not been sentenced to death, the
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
(Yu, J., dissenting)
court adhered to precedent and held the juveniles' substantive due process
challenge failed and they had no right to be heard in juvenile court.
Our understanding ofjuvenile culpability has changed dramatically over the
last 20 years. We now recognize that'"parts ofthe brain involved in behavior
control' continue to develop well into a person's 20s," and so juveniles differ from
adults in their "risk and consequence assessment, impulse control, tendency toward
antisocial behaviors, and [their] susceptibility to peer pressure." State v. O'Dell,
183 Wn.2d 680, 691-92, 358 P.3d 359(2015)(footnotes and internal quotation
marks omitted)(quoting Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 472, 132 S. Ct. 2455,
183 L. Ed. 2d 407(2012)).
This new knowledge has resulted in a marked shift in the way we treat
accused juvenile offenders. When asked whether juveniles should be treated
differently than adults, both the United States Supreme Court and this court have
consistently answered affirmatively and now "it is the odd legal rule that does not
have some form of exception for children." Miller, 567 U.S. at 481. J.D.B. v.
North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261, 265, 131 S. Ct. 2394, 180 L. Ed. 2d 310(2011)(a
child's age is relevant in a Miranda custody analysis); Miller, 567 U.S. at 465(mandatory juvenile life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment); Graham
V. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 82, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 176 L. Ed. 2d 825(2010)(juvenile
life without parole for nonhomicide offenders violates the Eighth Amendment);
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
(Yu, J., dissenting)
Roper V. Simmons, 543 U.S. at 578 (juvenile death penalty violates the Eighth
Amendment); State v. Houston-Sconiers, 188 Wn.2d 1, 9, 391 P.3d 409(2017)
(superior courts have "absolute discretion" to depart from standard sentences when
sentencing juveniles in adult court); O'Dell, 183 Wn.2d at 696 (adult courts may
consider youth as a mitigating factor when imposing a sentence on a young adult);
S.J.C., 183 Wn.2d at 411 (article I, section 10 does not apply to statutory sealing of
juvenile court records).
The legislature has also reconsidered its approach to juveniles since the
unfounded fears ofjuvenile superpredators gripped the nation in the 1990s.
Corrected Br. of Amici Curiae Creative Justice, Cmty. Passageways,& Glover
Empower-Mentoring Program at 3-4. Recent policy decisions are in lockstep with
recent judicial decisions and evidence an understanding that adolescent brain
development must inform how juveniles are adjudicated. In 2018,the legislature
amended the statute at issue in this case, RCW 13.04.030(l)(e)(v), and removed
first degree burglary and other Crimes from those that result in automatic decline of
an accused juvenile offender. Laws OF 2018, ch. 162, § 1. The legislature also
took the extraordinary step of extending juvenile court jurisdiction to age 25,
recognizing that a juvenile does not instantly mature into an adult at age 18 or even
21. Id. While the majority correctly notes that the constitutionality ofthe
amended legislation is not properly before this court, the majority errs when it
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
(Yu, J., dissenting)
dismisses it as "ha[ving] no bearing on our resolution" ofthis case. Majority at 1
n.1. I disagree. We should view the legislature's recent amendment as consistent
with the growing body of law and science that affirms the fundamental principle
that "children are different." State v. Houston-Sconiers, 188 Wn.2d 1, 18, 391
P.3d 409(2017)(citing Miller, 567 U.S. at 481).
Despite how much has changed since Boot, the majority concludes that
juvenile court jurisdiction is not necessary to protect the substantive due process
rights ofjuveniles because adult courts have discretion to deviate from standard
sentences. Majority at 17-18 {citing Houstori-Scoriiers, 188 Wn.2d at 21). But the
burden of convincing the trial court to exercise that discretion in favor ofthe
youthful offender lies with the juvenile. State v. Ramos, 187 Wn.2d 420, 445, 387
P.3d 650(2017). And other burdens fall on the juvenile charged in adult court,
including an adult conviction record, the lack of confidentiality, the emphasis on
punishment over rehabilitation, and adult postsentencing conditions. Since those
burdens remain, the substantive due process question remains. And Boofs answer
to that question—which relied on the assumption that juveniles are not
categorically less culpable than adults—is incorrect.
I would resolve this case by applying the fundamental principle that children
are different. As the Supreme Court explained in Kent,"[i]t would be
extraordinary if society's special concern for children .. . permitted" a judge to
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
(Yu, J., dissenting)
order a juvenile transferred to adult court without the opportunity for a hearing.
383 U.S. at 554. I agree. And I believe, taken as a whole, our precedent
unmistakably supports applying this conclusion to all accused juvenile offenders. I
am unwilling to accept the premise that it is constitutionally permissible to
arbitrarily carve out certain classes of accused juvenile offenders and deprive them
ofthe right or opportunity to be heard in juvenile court before being transferred to
adult court. It creates an unacceptable risk that juveniles will be subjected to
convictions, stigma, conditions, and punishments that are disproportionate to their
crimes. I similarly do not believe that a decision "of such tremendous
consequences" can rest solely on prosecutorial discretion because the reality is that
political pressure may actually encourage prosecutors to transfer youth to adult
court in order to seek harsher sentences available only in adult court. Id. at 554.
I would therefore reverse the trial court and hold that former RCW
13.04.030(1) is inconsistent with our case law and violates fundamental notions of
due process. I would further hold that juveniles cannot be transferred to adult court
without a hearing conducted by a juvenile court judge. The judge should consider
the individual circumstances of the case, such as the juvenile's age, maturity, and
offender history; the strength ofthe prosecutor's case; and the nature ofthe alleged
offense, including whether it was violent and how many youth were involved.
7
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
(Yu, J., dissenting)
CONCLUSION
It is the status of being a juvenile, and not the specific offending behavior at
issue, that triggers differing protections for youth. Auto-decline statutes, however,
require certain accused juvenile offenders to be treated as adults based on their
alleged crimes, without any opportunity for a discretionary judicial determination
that the particular juvenile at issue should, in fact, be treated as an adult. Juveniles
have a right not to be automatically treated as adults. This requires a juvenile court
to conduct a hearing at which it considers the individual juvenile who has been
charged with a particular offense in order to determine whether adult criminal
court is the right place for that person. I respectfully dissent.
State V. Watkins, No. 94973-5
(Yu, J., dissenting)