State of Tennessee v. Christopher Bell ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •         IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT JACKSON
    Assigned on Briefs January 6, 2015
    STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTOPHER BELL
    Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County
    Nos. 13-02461, 13-02515  Paula Skahan, Judge
    No. W2014-00504-CCA-R3-CD - Filed March 4, 2015
    Appellant, Christopher Bell, pleaded guilty to especially aggravated robbery, aggravated
    burglary, employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and
    aggravated criminal trespass. The trial court sentenced appellant to an effective
    seventeen-year sentence. Appellant reserved a certified question of law arguing that the
    juvenile court did not properly conduct his transfer hearing from juvenile court to
    criminal court. Following our review of the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we
    conclude that appellant’s transfer hearing was properly conducted and affirm the
    judgments of the trial court.
    Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed
    ROGER A. PAGE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ALAN E. GLENN and
    CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JJ., joined.
    Stephen C. Bush, District Public Defender; Barry W. Kuhn (on appeal) and Kamilah
    Turner (at plea hearing), Assistant District Public Defenders, Memphis, Tennessee, for
    the appellant, Christopher Bell.
    Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; J. Ross Dyer, Senior Counsel;
    Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Marques Young, Assistant District
    Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
    OPINION
    I. Facts
    This case arose from two separate incidents. The first occurred on July 1, 2012,
    when Eileen Williams discovered that someone had entered her home through a broken
    window. Nothing was stolen from the home. Fingerprints later connected appellant to
    the home invasion.
    The second incident occurred on November 27, 2012. Appellant, age fifteen, went
    to the door of a seventy-two-year-old woman, Sarah Ann Erwin, under the guise of
    asking to rake leaves in her yard. However, when Ms. Erwin denied that work was
    needed, appellant drew a gun, pointed it at Ms. Erwin, and demanded her purse. When
    Ms. Erwin attempted to close her door, appellant pushed it open. Ms. Erwin then ran into
    her home to retrieve a weapon but fell in her attempt to escape. When she fell to the
    ground, appellant shot her. The bullet entered Ms. Erwin’s buttocks and lodged in her
    armpit, damaging her liver, diaphragm, stomach, colon, and breast. Appellant demanded
    that Ms. Erwin retrieve her purse and made her crawl “on all fours” into the kitchen
    where her purse was located. Even though the victim indicated the location of her purse
    after she and appellant had entered the kitchen, appellant demanded that Ms. Erwin
    retrieve the purse from the table and hand it to him, threatening to shoot her if she did not
    comply. Ms. Erwin threw her purse to appellant, and appellant ran from her home. As a
    result of her injuries, Ms. Erwin endured a four-hour surgery, three weeks in the hospital,
    and three weeks in rehabilitation.
    Appellant was later apprehended and was indicted on two counts of aggravated
    burglary, especially aggravated robbery, and employing a firearm during the commission
    of a dangerous felony. The juvenile court conducted a transfer hearing on November 25,
    2013, and transferred appellant’s case to criminal court. In criminal court, appellant
    pleaded guilty to especially aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, employing a
    firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, and aggravated criminal trespass.
    The trial court sentenced appellant to seventeen years for the especially aggravated
    robbery conviction, four years for the aggravated burglary conviction, six years for the
    employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony conviction, and eleven
    months and twenty-nine days for the aggravated criminal trespass conviction. All
    sentences were aligned concurrently except the four-year aggravated burglary conviction
    and the six-year firearm conviction, which were aligned consecutively with one another
    but concurrently with the remaining sentences, for an effective sentence of seventeen
    years. As part of his guilty plea, appellant reserved the following certified question:
    “Whether the statutory requirements for transfer from juvenile court were followed and
    whether the transfer to Criminal Court was therefore proper.”
    II. Analysis
    Appellant argues that the juvenile court failed to properly consider whether
    appellant was amenable to rehabilitation prior to transferring appellant’s case to criminal
    -2-
    court. The State responds that appellant’s certified question is not dispositive and that the
    trial court properly conducted appellant’s transfer hearing.
    While the State argues that the certified question is not dispositive, this court has
    stated:
    We note that the process of obtaining appellate review of a lawyer
    juvenile judge’s order transferring a child to be tried as an adult is rather
    awkward. The criminal court has no authority to decline jurisdiction. Thus,
    the criminal court is put in a position of being forced to dispose of the case
    on the merits even though an appellate court must later determine whether
    the decision of the juvenile court transferring the child to the criminal court
    was correct. Thus, it appears that in order to review the decision of the
    lawyer juvenile judge, the juvenile in criminal court must either (1) enter a
    plea of not guilty and thus preserve the issue for review, if convicted, or (2)
    reserve the issue on a plea of guilty or nolo contendere pursuant to Rule
    37(b)(2)(i) or (b)(2)(iv) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The
    second alternative assumes that the decision of whether the juvenile should
    be tried as an adult is a “certified question of law” that may be appealed
    pursuant to Rule 37.
    State v. Griffin, 
    914 S.W.2d 564
    , 566 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). Although the term
    “assumes” can be construed as either a determination that a transfer hearing satisfies Rule
    37 or that a reviewing court should make such a determination, this court has addressed
    challenges to a juvenile transfer hearing via certified question on numerous occasions.
    See State v. Boccous McGill, Jr., and Darius Lacy, No. M2013-01076-CCA-R3-CD,
    
    2014 WL 1413875
    (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 11, 2014); State v. Isiah Wilson, No. W2003-
    02394-CCA-R3-CD, 
    2004 WL 2533834
    (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 8, 2004); State v.
    Simmons, 
    108 S.W.3d 881
    (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002); State v. Tavaris Hill, No. 01C01-
    9301-CC-00028, 
    1993 WL 345537
    (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 9, 1993). We decline to
    depart from that precedent.
    Therefore, we address appellant’s certified question on the merits. The procedure
    and considerations for a juvenile transfer hearing are set forth in Tennessee Code
    Annotated section 37-1-134. The relevant portions of the statute are:
    (a) After a petition has been filed alleging delinquency based on conduct
    that is designated a crime or public offense under the laws, including local
    ordinances, of this state, the court, before hearing the petition on the merits,
    may transfer the child to the sheriff of the county to be held according to
    law and to be dealt with as an adult in the criminal court of competent
    -3-
    jurisdiction. The disposition of the child shall be as if the child were an
    adult if:
    (1) The child was sixteen (16) years or more of age at the time of the
    alleged conduct, or the child was less than sixteen (16) years of age if such
    child was charged with the offense of first degree murder, second degree
    murder, rape, aggravated rape, rape of a child, aggravated rape of a child,
    aggravated robbery, especially aggravated robbery, kidnapping, aggravated
    kidnapping or especially aggravated kidnapping or an attempt to commit
    any such offenses. The district attorney general may not seek, nor may any
    child transferred under this section receive, a sentence of death for the
    offense for which the child was transferred;
    ....
    (4) The court finds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that:
    (A) The child committed the delinquent act as alleged;
    (B) The child is not committable to an institution for the developmentally
    disabled or mentally ill; and
    (C) The interests of the community require that the child be put under legal
    restraint or discipline.
    (b) In making the determination required by subsection (a), the court shall
    consider, among other matters:
    (1) The extent and nature of the child’s prior delinquency records;
    (2) The nature of past treatment efforts and the nature of the child’s
    response thereto;
    (3) Whether the offense was against person or property, with greater weight
    in favor of transfer given to offenses against the person;
    (4) Whether the offense was committed in an aggressive and premeditated
    manner;
    (5) The possible rehabilitation of the child by use of procedures, services
    and facilities currently available to the court in this state; and
    -4-
    (6) Whether the child’s conduct would be a criminal gang offense, as
    defined in § 40-35-121, if committed by an adult.
    Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-134(a)-(b).
    In reviewing a juvenile court’s determinations in a transfer hearing,
    we do not decide where the preponderance of the evidence lies, but whether
    there were reasonable grounds for the juvenile court judge to believe that
    the three criteria of section 37-1-134(a)(4)(A)-(C) . . . were present. A
    juvenile court judge’s discretionary decision to allow a juvenile to be
    treated as an adult should not be disturbed on appeal, if there was probable
    cause to believe that the juvenile committed the crime and the evidence at
    the hearing showed that the juvenile was not mentally impaired and should
    be legally restrained.
    State v. Jacob Andrew Brown, No. W2012-01297-CCA-R3-CD, 
    2013 WL 4029216
    , at *6
    (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 7, 2013) (citations omitted), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Dec. 10,
    2013). Appellant does not argue that there was insufficient probable cause to believe that
    he committed the crimes alleged. Rather, appellant argues that the juvenile court did not
    properly consider subsection (b)(5), which is required to make the determination that a
    juvenile should be transferred to criminal court, because the court did not determine if
    appellant was amenable to rehabilitation.
    However, the juvenile court specifically reviewed each of the six statutory factors
    in section 37-1-134(b) when making its determination. Regarding subsection (b)(5), the
    court stated:
    I find that there is no rehabilitation for Mr. Bell in the Juvenile Justice
    System. No proof whatsoever has been offered that he can be rehabilitated
    in the Juvenile Justice System. I reject any proffer from counsel. This
    court has to have definitive proof, and there is no definitive proof that a
    young man who would take a weapon and turn it on a seventy-two-year-old
    woman, force her back into her home, shoot her, and then coldly force her
    to crawl across her house into the kitchen to retrieve her purse, and twice
    threaten her life can be rehabilitated when no proof is submitted on that
    fact. Having found against rehabilitation, having found all of the other
    factors that were required pursuant to law, the court makes a specific
    finding that it is in the interest of the community that these children . . . be
    put under legal restraint or discipline.
    -5-
    Appellant argues that the court improperly relied on only the facts and
    circumstances of the case rather than considering the number of programs available to
    juvenile offenders within the county and that this finding improperly made rehabilitation
    an affirmative defense. However, the juvenile court has wide discretion in the factors
    that it can consider when determining if an appellant is amenable to rehabilitation, and
    the court needs only reasonable grounds to find that a juvenile is not amenable to
    rehabilitation. See State v. Layne, 
    546 S.W.2d 220
    , 224 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976)
    (quoting State v. Strickland, 
    532 S.W.2d 912
    , 920 (Tenn. 1975)). “In making a decision
    whether a juvenile is amenable to treatment or rehabilitation, the Juvenile Judge may
    consider many factors including testimony by expert witnesses, the type of facilities
    available, length of stay in these facilities, the seriousness of the alleged crime, and the
    attitude and demeanor of the juvenile.” 
    Id. at 225
    (emphasis added) (quoting 
    Strickland, 532 S.W.2d at 920
    ) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court can in good faith rely
    on all or none of these factors as long as there are reasonable grounds supporting the
    decision. This court has also stated that a defendant’s conduct surrounding the offenses
    and the serious nature of the offenses impact that defendant’s amenability for
    rehabilitation. State v. Robert William Holmes, No. 01C01-9303-CC-00090, 
    1994 WL 421306
    , at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 11, 1994). Furthermore, the court’s observation
    that no evidence regarding rehabilitation had been presented by either side does not
    transform this statutory factor into an affirmative defense. See 
    id. Therefore, the
    juvenile
    court properly considered the facts and nature of appellant’s crimes when determining
    whether appellant was amenable to rehabilitation. We conclude that appellant is not
    entitled to relief from the juvenile court’s transfer order.
    CONCLUSION
    Based on the parties’ briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude that
    appellant’s transfer hearing was properly conducted and affirm the judgments of the trial
    court.
    _________________________________
    ROGER A. PAGE, JUDGE
    -6-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: W2014-00504-CCA-R3-CD

Judges: Judge Roger A. Page

Filed Date: 3/4/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/4/2015