E.O., In re
| Decision Date | 16 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. J-84-817,J-84-817 |
| Citation | 703 P.2d 192 |
| Parties | In re E.O., An Alleged Delinquent/Certification Child. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Juvenile appellant E.O. was certified to stand trial as an adult for two counts of Burglary of a Vending Machine, in violation of 21 O.S.1981, § 1435, and one count of Attempted Burglary, in violation of 21 O.S.1981, §§ 42 and 1435. On appeal, we reverse.
The charges arose from separate allegations that E.O. twice played a video game without paying by manually tripping the machine and that he attempted to burgle a house under construction. Despite unanimous recommendations that the appellant remain in the juvenile system, the trial judge certified appellant as an adult, finding the offenses serious, E.O. of sufficient maturity and sophistication to understand the consequences of his acts, inadequate safeguards to protect the public, and E.O. unamenable to rehabilitation, considering the past failure to treat him in the juvenile system.
In order to certify a juvenile to stand trial as an adult, the juvenile judge must make two ultimate findings: First, that there is prosecutive merit to the complaint, that is, a finding that a crime has been committed and that there is probable cause to believe the accused juvenile committed it; and second, that the juvenile is not a fit subject for rehabilitation by the facilities and programs available to the juvenile court. J.T.P. v. State, 544 P.2d 1270 (Okl.Cr.1975). The appellant herein challenges only the second finding, that is, that the juvenile is not amenable to rehabilitation.
The finding that a child is unfit for rehabilitation is a discretionary decision to be made by the judge, but the decision must be based on substantial evidence against the child's claim to the benefit of juvenile treatment. Terrell v. State, 551 P.2d 1143 (Okl.Cr.1976).
Title 10 O.S.1981, § 1112(b) sets forth six factors the trial judge must consider when determining the prospects for reasonable rehabilitation of the child. The evidence presented in regard to these factors showed that the crimes involved, while willfully committed, were relatively minor property crimes; that the sixteen-year-old appellant was functioning socially, emotionally and intellectually like a ten-year-old; that his functional level was in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R.J.D. v. State, J-89-862
...of the juvenile system would lead to rehabilitation. J.D.L., Jr. v. State, 782 P.2d 1387, 1392 (Okl.Cr.1989). See also, E.O. v. State, 703 P.2d 192, 193 (Okl.Cr.1985) and C.S.M. v. State, 599 P.2d 426, 430 Our examination of the record of the certification hearing indicates that the judge b......
-
J.D.L., Jr. v. State, J-88-1061
...but the decision must be based on substantial evidence against the juvenile's claim to the benefit of juvenile treatment. In re E.O., 703 P.2d 192, 193 (Okl.Cr.1985). In C.J.W. v. State, 732 P.2d 908, 911 (Okl.Cr.1986), we held that the juvenile judge properly rested his decision to certify......
-
W.C.P. v. State
...is not amenable to rehabilitation within the existing juvenile system. C.J.W. v. State, 732 P.2d 908 (Okl.Cr.1987); In re E.O., 703 P.2d 192, 193 (Okl.Cr.1985); 10 O.S.1981, § 1112. The record reflects that on September 25, 1989, after an offer of proof and stipulation, prosecutive merit wa......
-
C.J.W. v. State, J-86-476
...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 In his first assignment of error, appellant claims that there was insufficient evidence to make a fin......