State v. Angel C.

• Decision Date: 23 June 1998
• Docket Number: 15704,15703,Nos. 15702,15795,s. 15702
• Citation: 715 A.2d 652,245 Conn. 93
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. ANGEL C. * STATE of Connecticut v. RANDY D.* STATE of Connecticut v. JOSE C.* STATE of Connecticut v. Reggie BATTLES.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Page 652

715 A.2d 652

245 Conn. 93

STATE of Connecticut v. ANGEL C. ^*

STATE of Connecticut v. RANDY D.*

STATE of Connecticut v. JOSE C.*

STATE of Connecticut v. Reggie BATTLES.

Nos. 15702, 15703, 15704, 15795.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued March 19, 1998.

Decided June 23, 1998.

Lauren Weisfeld, New Haven, and Margaret P. Levy, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, were Mary M. Haselkamp, Derby, and Beth Merkin, Cheshire, for appellants (defendants).

Christopher T. Godialis, Assistant State's Attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, State's Attorney, James E. Thomas, State's Attorney, and Cecilia Wiederhold and John F. Fahey, Assistant State's Attorneys, for appellee (State).

Before CALLAHAN, C.J., and BORDEN, NORCOTT, KATZ and McDONALD, JJ.

CALLAHAN, Chief Justice.

The sole issue in this appeal is the constitutionality of General Statutes § 46b-127 (a), ¹ which amended the Juvenile Justice Act; General Statutes § 46b-120 et seq.; by mandating an automatic transfer to the regular criminal docket of the Superior Court (criminal docket or court) for any individual who has attained the age of fourteen years and is charged with certain enumerated offenses. Pursuant to § 46b-127 (a), automatic transfer of a child to the criminal docket is mandatory if the child is charged with having committed a capital, class A or class B felony, ² or arson murder as defined by General Statutes § 53a-54d, ³ after he or she has attained the age of fourteen years. The court is precluded from exercising any discretion in the transfer process. Additionally, § 46b-127 (a) provides that the prosecutor may, within ten days after the automatic transfer to the criminal docket, present a motion to the court requesting that a juvenile charged with a class B felony be retransferred to the docket for juvenile matters (juvenile docket).

This appeal arises out of four consolidated cases, each challenging the constitutionality of § 46b-127 (a). The underlying relevant facts are not disputed by the defendants. On October 29, 1995, three assailants accosted and attempted to rob a pedestrian in the area of York Street in New Haven. The three assailants, one of whom was wearing a mask, surrounded the victim, demanded cash and attempted to search the victim. One of the assailants claimed to have a gun and threatened to use it if the victim did not comply with their demand. The victim escaped unscathed, however, and called the police. Soon after, the three perpetrators accosted another victim. Using the same method, they obtained $17. Soon thereafter, the defendants Randy D., Angel C. and Jose C., each of whom was fourteen years of age, were apprehended in the vicinity. The police found a mask and $17 in their possession, but no gun.

The defendants were arrested and charged with first degree robbery in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134, a class B felony, as well as conspiracy and attempt to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48, 53a-49 and 53a-134. ⁴ Pursuant to the provisions of the newly enacted § 46b-127 (a), the defendants were automatically transferred to the criminal docket. They filed a motion to dismiss their transfers, ⁵ alleging that § 46b-127 (a) is unconstitutional because it did not afford them notice of the pending transfer or an opportunity for a hearing and the assistance of counsel prior to the transfer. They also sought an articulation by the prosecutor regarding his reason for not transferring their case back to the juvenile docket. The trial court denied both motions, concluding that the statute was not unconstitutional and that an articulation by the prosecution was not required. The three defendants then entered conditional pleas of nolo contendere to youthful offender status, ⁶ based on an underlying charge of conspiracy to commit robbery in the second degree. When the defendants entered their pleas, they preserved the right to appeal the denial of their motions to dismiss. ⁷ The defendants were sentenced to suspended terms of incarceration ranging from two to five years and three years probation.

The defendant Reggie Battles, ⁸ also fourteen years of age, was identified by the victim as one of five participants in the sexual assault of a young woman on May 18, 1996, in Hartford. He was arrested and charged with the class A felonies of first degree kidnapping in violation of General Statutes § 53a-92 ⁹ and conspiracy to commit first degree kidnapping in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-92. He also was charged with the class B felonies of first degree sexual assault in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 ¹⁰ and conspiracy and attempt to commit first degree sexual assault in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48, 53a-49 and 53a-70, and with the class A misdemeanor of assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-61. His case was automatically transferred to the criminal docket where he moved for dismissal, asserting that the transfer was unconstitutional. His motion was denied, ¹¹ and the state filed a substitute information charging him with the crimes of kidnapping in the first degree, sexual assault in the first degree and conspiracy to commit sexual assault in the first degree. Subsequently, Battles entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere to third degree burglary in violation of General Statutes § 53a-103, first degree unlawful restraint in violation of General Statutes § 53a-95 and fourth degree sexual assault in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a, ¹² preserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. General Statutes § 54-94a; see footnote 7 of this opinion. Battles was sentenced to eight years imprisonment, execution suspended after two years, and five years probation.

The four defendants appealed from the judgments of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeals to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023, now Practice Book (1998 Rev.) § 65-1, and General Statutes § 51-199(c). ¹³ The defendants claim that § 46b-127 (a) violates both the state and federal constitutions in that: (1) it denies them procedural due process by depriving them of a vested liberty interest in their status as juveniles without notice, a hearing or the assistance of counsel; (2) it denies them substantive due process by failing to provide for a probable cause hearing prior to their transfer to the criminal docket; (3) it denies them the equal protection of the laws; and (4) it violates the separation of powers provision of article second of the state constitution because the prosecutor's discretion to determine which juveniles charged with class B felonies should be tried as adults is without standards or the opportunity for judicial review. The defendants claim that this infringes upon an exclusive function of the judiciary, to wit, the right to control the court's docket. We do not agree with any of the defendants' claims.

We begin our analysis by noting that the defendants face a difficult task in seeking to prove that § 46b-127 (a) is unconstitutional. It is firmly established that " 'legislative enactments carry with them a strong presumption of constitutionality, and that a party challenging the constitutionality of a validly enacted statute bears the heavy burden of proving the statute unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.' " ¹⁴ Chotkowski v. State, 240 Conn. 246, 257-58, 690 A.2d 368 (1997); Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc. v. EI Constructors, Inc., 239 Conn. 708, 754, 687 A.2d 506 (1997); State v. Floyd, 217 Conn. 73, 79, 584 A.2d 1157 (1991); State v. Dupree, 196 Conn. 655, 663, 495 A.2d 691, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 951, 106 S.Ct. 318, 88 L.Ed.2d 301 (1985). Bearing this admonition in mind, we turn to the defendants' substantive claims.

I

The defendants first argue that they have a liberty interest in their status as juveniles and the special benefits that such status entails. They further argue that their automatic transfer to the criminal docket violates their right to procedural due process, namely the right to notice of the pending transfer, an opportunity for a hearing and the right to the assistance of counsel at the hearing prior to the transfer. In the defendants' view, whenever a state has created a juvenile court system and permits transfers from the juvenile court to the criminal court, a juvenile must be accorded those minimal protections prior to the transfer. We do not agree.

There is no dispute that adjudication as a juvenile rather than prosecution as an adult carries significant benefits, chief among which are a determination of delinquency rather than criminality; General Statutes § 46b-121; confidentiality; General Statutes § 46b-124; limitations with respect to sentencing; General Statutes § 46b-140; erasure of files; General Statutes § 46b-146; and isolation from the adult criminal population. General Statutes § 46b-133; see also In re Tyvonne M., 211 Conn. 151, 158-61, 558 A.2d 661 (1989). Accordingly, we assume without deciding that a juvenile in whom a liberty interest in his or her juvenile status has vested, has a substantial liberty interest in the continuation of that juvenile status and that the juvenile cannot and should not be deprived of that status without the procedural protections claimed by the defendants. The determinative question, therefore, is whether these defendants had a liberty interest in their juvenile status prior to their automatic transfer to the criminal docket. We conclude that they did not.

The requirements for a successful due process claim are well established. "The fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution provides that the State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.... In order to prevail on his due process claim, the [defendant] must prove that: (1) he has been deprived of a property [or liberty] interest cognizable under...