In re D.G.J.
| Docket Number | ED110993 |
| Decision Date | 06 June 2023 |
| Parties | IN THE INTEREST OF: D.G.J., JR. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County 22SL-JU00006 Honorable Jason D. Dodson
D.G.J Jr. (Appellant) appeals from the St. Louis County Family Court's order granting the St. Louis County Juvenile Officer's (Juvenile Officer) motion to dismiss a petition filed against Appellant as a juvenile to allow prosecution in a court of general jurisdiction. We affirm.
The Juvenile Officer filed a petition against Appellant pursuant to Section 211.031.1 (3) RSMo (Cum. Supp 2021),[1] alleging that Appellant, acting with others, "forcibly stole a safe belonging to Darnisha Mims and in the course thereof [Appellant] and another participant in the offense displayed or threatened the use of what appeared to be a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument to-wit: a handgun." Darnisha Mims (Mims) is Appellant's aunt. Late evening on November 1, 2021 - after Mims told Appellant he could stay with her earlier that day at his request - he and three other males entered her home armed with guns. They separated Mims from her three small children, ages seven, five, and three, and held them at gunpoint in separate rooms. They left with her safe.
The juvenile court found probable cause existed to believe Appellant's conduct as alleged in the petition and found placement in secure detention served both his best interest and that of the community. The Juvenile Officer subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the juvenile petition and requested a hearing pursuant to Section 211.071, to determine whether Appellant should be adjudicated pursuant to the juvenile code, and if not, then be prosecuted under the general law.
A certification hearing was held on July 15, 2022, and August 4, 2022, at which time Appellant was represented by counsel and was approximately eighteen-and-a-half years old. Deputy Juvenile Officer Deborah Hausler (Hausler) testified on behalf of the Juvenile Officer regarding her investigation and assessment of Appellant's alleged offense and recommended certification as an adult. She reviewed and was familiar with his social file, which contained numerous documents, including reports from Appellant's school and several incident reports from the detention center. She also conducted interviews with Appellant, his father, step-mother, and his mother. Hausler met with Appellant approximately twenty-three times, with a "lengthy" initial interview and shorter weekly meetings while he was in detention. She testified the alleged crimes involved viciousness, force and violence. Appellant had only one prior referral to the Juvenile Office for misdemeanor property damage, and Hausler did not believe the current offense demonstrated a repetitive pattern of offenses.
Hausler testified she considered Appellant's age, programs and facilities available to the St. Louis County juvenile court in making her recommendation; however, she did not consider community-based supervision appropriate because of the serious nature of the allegations. She did not think a private residential treatment facility was appropriate because although several referrals were submitted he was not accepted due to his age and again because of the serious nature of the allegations. Hausler further considered whether Appellant could benefit from treatment and services within the juvenile court system, but this option was not feasible because Appellant exhibited significant behavior issues at the detention center. He made aggressive threats toward the staff, to include physical harm and death. He also had reports of physically kicking or hitting the door of his room, and in some instances had to be restrained and moved to a more secure area due to safety concerns.
Additionally, she testified commitment to the Division of Youth Services (DYS) was not appropriate because he could only be committed for five months until he turned nineteen years old, which she did not believe was sufficient time given the nature of the allegations. She acknowledged DYS could petition to keep Appellant in the system until he turned twenty-one, but DYS had not done so during her fifteen years in the juvenile court. Hausler testified Appellant had no mental health concerns, and his race did not have any effect on her recommendation.
Mims presented a statement to the court regarding the emotional injuries she and her children sustained from the events of November 1, 2021. She testified to the negative impact on her mental health as well as the trauma she and her children experienced from the incident. She claimed she fears for her children who are scared to leave the house at certain times of the day. Mims stated it is difficult for the children to "move on with their daily life and daily activities." Demetrius Mims, her husband, also testified at the hearing. He said their children cannot sleep through the night because of the experience.
Dr. Desiree Baumgartner (Dr. Baumgartner), a forensic child and adolescent psychologist, testified on behalf of Appellant. She completed a psychiatric interview with Appellant and diagnosed him with major depressive disorder, which she categorized as "severe" due to his symptoms and the significant recurrence of suicidal ideation. Dr. Baumgartner testified that based on her knowledge of adolescent brain development and its impact on behavior and impulse control she could opine that even if Appellant received treatment for only five months before being released due to his age, it would have much more of an impact on a juvenile his age than an adult. Dr. Baumgartner believed Appellant could still benefit from DYS services such as treatment for his depression with medication and counseling, in addition to help with his education and job skills training or placement in a residential treatment facility, even if only for a short time.
The court entered its judgment and order certifying Appellant for prosecution under the general law, ordering the petition dismissed, discharging Appellant from the juvenile court and ordering that Appellant be transferred to a court of general jurisdiction. This appeal follows.
In his sole point on appeal, Appellant alleges the hearing court abused its discretion in dismissing the juvenile cause of action and certifying Appellant to be prosecuted as an adult because the totality of the circumstances show that Appellant would have benefitted from treatment and rehabilitation programs available in the juvenile system.
Upon review of the court's decision to terminate jurisdiction over a juvenile offender we determine whether in light of the totality of the circumstances, the court abused its discretion. Interest of T.D.S., 643 S.W.3d510, 516 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021), citing State v. Woodworth, 941 S.W.2d 679, 697 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997). A juvenile court abuses its discretion if the ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances before it and is so unreasonable and arbitrary as to shock the sense of justice. Id. (internal citations omitted), "In reviewing a juvenile court's determination for an abuse of discretion, we will not reweigh the evidence or determine the reliability or credibility of the witnesses." Interest of D.D.B., 660 S.W.3d 65, 74 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023). The facts in evidence and the reasonable inferences are viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence. Id. at 67. We will affirm the trial court's decision unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Id. at 74 (citing Interest of J.M.C., 920 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) (citing Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976)).
Pursuant to Section 211.071.6, the court shall consider the following but not exclusive, criteria when determining whether to certify a juvenile for prosecution under the general law and the juvenile court need not give equal weight to each one:
Section 211.071.6; T.D.S., 643 S.W.3d at 523-27.
Appellant argues that the focus in a certification proceeding is on the juvenile, not the conduct alleged in the petition. See T.D.S., 643 S.W.3d at 520. However, Section 211.071 specifically directs the...
To continue reading
Request your trial