C.J.W. v. State, J-86-476

• Decision Date: 13 February 1987
• Docket Number: No. J-86-476,J-86-476
• Citation: 732 P.2d 908
• Parties: C.J.W., Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 908

732 P.2d 908

C.J.W., Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. J-86-476.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 13, 1987.

E. Alvin Schay, Appellate Public Defender, Norman, for appellant.

Cathy Stocker, Garfield County Dist. Atty., Karen Cline, Asst. Dist. Atty., Enid, for appellee.

OPINION

PARKS, Judge:

Appellant, C.J.W., a juvenile of the age of sixteen, having been born February 10, 1970, was certified to stand trial as an adult for First Degree Murder (21 O.S.1981, § 701.7), in Case No. JUV-86-2, in Garfield County District Court before the Honorable Glenn Adams. On appeal, we affirm.

A juvenile may be certified to stand trial as an adult upon two findings by a juvenile judge: First, that there is prosecutive merit to the complaint, that is, a finding that a crime has been committed and probable cause to believe the accused juvenile committed it; and second, that the juvenile is not amenable to rehabilitation within the existing juvenile system. In re E.O., 703 P.2d 192, 193 (Okl.Cr.1985). The appellant challenges both findings.

In his first assignment of error, appellant claims that there was insufficient evidence to make a finding of prosecutive merit, because testimony concerning his confession should have been suppressed on the ground that the confession was obtained in violation of 10 O.S.Supp.1985, § 1109(a). Section 1109(a) states in relevant part:

No information gained by questioning a child ... shall be admissible into evidence against the child unless the questioning ... is done in the presence of the parents, guardian, attorney, or legal custodian of the child. No such questioning shall commence until the child and his parents, or guardian, or other legal custodian have been fully advised of the constitutional and legal rights of the child....

We agree with the appellant that Section 1109(a) creates an automatic and mandatory rule that both the juvenile and his parent or other legal custodian must be fully advised of the juvenile's constitutional and legal rights, and that the parent or other legal custodian must be present during any questioning to advise the juvenile. In re R.P.R.G., 584 P.2d 239, 241 (Okl.Cr.1978); J.T.P. v. State, 544 P.2d 1270, 1277 (Okl.Cr.1975).

In the instant case, the record indicates that Detective Tim Goodpasture advised the appellant and his father of their Miranda rights prior to any questioning. C.J.W. signed a rights waiver card in the presence of his father, who signed the same card as a witness. Appellant's father was present to advise the appellant during questioning. According to Detective Dennis Madison, C.J.W. responded that he understood his rights, that he wished to talk to the officers, and that he participated in the killing of a fourteen-year-old girl. On the basis of the foregoing, we hold that not only were the dictates of Section 1109(a) strictly complied with, but that the State has shown a knowing and intelligent waiver of appellant's right to counsel and his right to remain silent. See A.R.T. v. State, 612 P.2d 1366, 1368 (Okl.Cr.1980); J.A.M. v. State, 598 P.2d 1207, 1209 (Okl.Cr.1979); C.G.H. v. State, 580 P.2d 523, 526 (Okl.Cr.1978).

We also reject the bald assertions made by appellant that he and his father did not clearly understand their Miranda rights. In re R.P.R.G., 584 P.2d 239, 241-42 (Okl.Cr.1978). Indeed, appellant himself concedes that he scored better than seventy-seven percent (77%) of his peers on a reading test. Moreover, our decision has no bearing on what the proper decision would be if a motion to suppress the confession is filed in the juvenile's trial as an adult, because that decision must be made on the basis of evidence presented at the admissibility hearing. Id. at 242. Thus, insofar as we have found that the confession was properly admitted for purposes of the prosecutive merit hearing, this assignment of error is without merit.

In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding that he was not amenable to treatment within the juvenile system. He first asserts that the juvenile judge relied on inappropriate standards. Our examination of the record indicates that the juvenile judge properly based his decision on the six factors set forth in 10 O.S.1981, § 1112(b). The following evidence was presented at the amenability hearing. Carmen Buller, a social worker employed with DHS, stated that C.J.W.'s prognosis for rehabilitation was poor because his passive-aggressive personality indicated...