Scott Cnty. Juvenile Officer v. P.J.T. (In re Interest of P.J.T.)

• Decision Date: 17 November 2021
• Docket Number: SD 36997
• Citation: 643 S.W.3d 527
• Parties: In the INTEREST OF P.J.T., Scott County Juvenile Officer, Petitioner-Respondent, v. P.J.T., Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

643 S.W.3d 527

In the INTEREST OF P.J.T.,

Scott County Juvenile Officer, Petitioner-Respondent,

v.P.J.T., Respondent-Appellant.

No. SD 36997

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

Filed: November 17, 2021

Rehearing Denied December 1, 2021

Application for Transfer Denied May 17, 2022

Attorneys for Appellant: Jeffrey C. Esparza of Kansas City, MO; Tim Honse of Kansas City, MO; and Kerina L. Ibarra of Jackson, MO.

Attorney for Respondent: Daniel F. Norton of Sikeston, MO.

JEFFREY W. BATES, J.

P.J.T. appeals from a judgment entered by the juvenile division of the circuit court that transferred his case to a court of general jurisdiction for criminal prosecution as an adult pursuant to § 211.071.¹ Evidence adduced at the certification hearing showed that P.J.T. stole a loaded .45 caliber handgun from his guardian and brought it to a fight between a juvenile friend and another juvenile. After the fight was over, P.J.T. fired three shots into a group of individuals. One of the bullets hit an unarmed, 15-year-old bystander (Victim), causing life-threatening injuries to him.

Presenting two points, P.J.T. contends the judgment should be reversed because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. P.J.T. argues that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to: (1) conduct a meaningful investigation; and (2) object to the admissibility of hearsay evidence. Finding no merit in either argument, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

In November 2020, P.J.T. was 15 years old. In early November 2020, a Deputy Juvenile Officer (DJO) and counsel for the Juvenile Officer (JO Counsel), filed a petition in the juvenile division asserting that P.J.T. was in need of care and treatment, pursuant to § 211.031.1(3), because he allegedly committed offenses that would be felonies if committed by a person 17 years or older.² The petition alleged that on November 11, 2020, P.J.T. committed the following three felonies:

Count 1 alleged the class A felony of assault in the first degree, in violation of § 565.050, when P.J.T. "attempted to kill or knowingly caused serious physical injury" to Victim "by shooting [him] with a firearm, to-wit: a .45 caliber handgun."

Count 2 alleged the unclassified felony of armed criminal action, in violation of § 571.015, when P.J.T. committed the above first-degree assault "by, with or through the use ... of a dangerous instrument or deadly weapon[.]"

Count 3 alleged the class E felony of unlawful use of a weapon, in violation of § 571.030, when P.J.T. "exhibited, in the presence of one or more persons, a weapon readily capable of lethal use[.]"

The petition was filed on November 12, 2020. That same day, the juvenile division judge set a detention hearing and appointed Keith Allen (Allen) as counsel for P.J.T. Allen appeared on behalf of P.J.T. at the detention hearing. As a protection for P.J.T. and others, and because P.J.T. might flee, he was ordered to remain in detention until further order of the court. JO Counsel filed a motion for certification pursuant to § 211.071. This motion asked the court to dismiss the juvenile proceeding and permit the State to prosecute P.J.T. in a court of general jurisdiction under general law.

The allegation that P.J.T. committed first-degree assault required the court to conduct a mandatory certification hearing pursuant to § 211.071.1.³ Section 211.071.6 requires that a written report be prepared:

A written report shall be prepared in accordance with this chapter developing fully all available information relevant to the criteria which shall be considered by the court in determining whether the child is a proper subject to be dealt with under the provisions of this chapter and whether there are reasonable prospects of rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system. These criteria shall include but not be limited to:

(1) The seriousness of the offense alleged and whether the protection of the community requires transfer to the court of general jurisdiction;

(2) Whether the offense alleged involved viciousness, force and violence;

(3) Whether the offense alleged was against persons or property with greater weight being given to the offense against persons, especially if personal injury resulted;

(4) Whether the offense alleged is a part of a repetitive pattern of offenses which indicates that the child may be beyond rehabilitation under the juvenile code;

(5) The record and history of the child, including experience with the juvenile justice system, other courts, supervision, commitments to juvenile institutions and other placements;

(6) The sophistication and maturity of the child as determined by consideration of his or her home and environmental situation, emotional condition and pattern of living;

(7) The age of the child;

(8) The program and facilities available to the juvenile court in considering disposition;

(9) Whether or not the child can benefit from the treatment or rehabilitative programs available to the juvenile court; and

(10) Racial disparity in certification.

§ 211.071.6(1)-(10).

On November 18, 2020, a certification social summary (Summary) was filed. The Summary contained information relevant to each of the ten criteria to be considered for certification pursuant to § 211.071.6(1)-(10). The Summary was signed by both the DJO and the Chief Juvenile Officer, Phillip Warren (Warren). A copy was provided to Allen. The juvenile division judge set the certification hearing for December 3, 2020.

At the certification hearing, Allen appeared on behalf of P.J.T., who appeared via video. Also appearing was P.J.T.’s guardian (Guardian). The Summary was admitted without objection. JO Counsel called Warren as the only witness. According to Warren, the current charges arose from the following events. A friend of P.J.T. wanted to fight another juvenile at an apartment complex and asked P.J.T. to go with him for support. P.J.T. stole a .45 caliber pistol, fully loaded, from Guardian to take with him to the fight. There were numerous individuals where the fight took place. After the fight was over, when there was no threat of imminent harm and P.J.T. was unprovoked, he fired three shots into the crowd.

One shot struck Victim, who was unarmed and at the apartment complex to play basketball. Victim's injuries were serious and life-threatening. He was struck in the right front pelvis area and required multiple surgeries to remove a significant portion of his large intestine and repair his bladder. It was uncertain whether additional surgeries would be required or what the lifelong effect of his injuries would be. After the shooting, P.J.T. got into a waiting vehicle and left the scene. He threw the handgun into a drainage ditch.

According to the Summary, once P.J.T. was in custody, he "admitted to taking the firearm from [Guardian] and discharging the firearm towards a large group (15-16 people)[.]"⁴ P.J.T. did not know Victim.⁵ Prior to being transported to the detention center, P.J.T. "showed no remorse for his actions, his only concern was if they were going to make him cut his hair."

P.J.T. had a history of prior interactions with the juvenile office. According to Warren, P.J.T. had a prior referral for striking a student in the head with an iPad. P.J.T. injured the student and broke the iPad in half. Based on that referral, P.J.T. was placed on informal probation through the juvenile office. P.J.T. participated in the "SORT program," which consists of mentoring, life-skills training, and an in-person anger management class. P.J.T. also completed an online, eight-hour anger management class and participated in some counseling. Prior to that referral, P.J.T. had "somewhere in the neighborhood of 28 discipline referrals [that had] to do with a lack of respect for authority, some physical altercations with other students, refusing to follow orders, disrespect, [and] a couple of fights." Warren did not believe P.J.T. had a learning disability or mental health issues that would indicate a lack of ability to comprehend the seriousness of the current charges against him.

In Warren's opinion, there was very little likelihood of any rehabilitation for P.J.T. in the juvenile system. P.J.T. had already participated in anger management and counseling services for his prior referral. Those services did nothing to rehabilitate him. The only other possible treatment would be to commit him to the Division of Youth Services (DYS), but DYS typically operates nonsecure facilities and had few secure facilities available. Warren could not guarantee a placement in a secure setting. That would create concerns about protecting the community, Victim and Victim's family. In addition, there was little likelihood of rehabilitating P.J.T. for these kinds of offenses. Warren opined that certification was really the only option for P.J.T.

After Warren's direct examination concluded, Allen conducted an extensive cross-examination. Allen also called P.J.T. to testify on his own behalf and presented a closing argument.

Thereafter, the juvenile division judge entered a judgment dismissing the juvenile proceeding and transferring P.J.T.’s case to a court of general jurisdiction for prosecution as an adult. The judge made detailed findings with respect to each of the ten criteria listed in § 211.071.6(1)-(10).⁶ The judge concluded that nine of the ten criteria supported certification of P.J.T. for the following reasons:

With [P.J.T.’s] history of aggressive, defiant, and violent behaviors, and further combined with the viciousness of the allegations currently before the Court, the Court concludes that the juvenile system is not able to effectively address these issues and rehabilitate [P.J.T.] while simultaneously keeping its commitment to keep the community safe.

This appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

"A judgment dismissing a juvenile from the juvenile division's jurisdiction is final and appealable." D.E.G. v. Juvenile Officer of Jackson Cty. , 601 S.W.3d 212, 218 (Mo. banc 2020). A...