C.L.F. v. Juvenile Officer

657 S.W.3d 273

In the Interest of: C.L.F., Appellant,

v.JUVENILE OFFICER, Respondent.

WD 84982

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: December 20, 2022

Jeffrey Esparza, Kansas City, MO for appellant.

Johnathan Meyer, Bethany, MO for respondent.

Before Division Two: Lisa White Hardwick, Presiding Judge, Thomas N. Chapman, Judge and Janet Sutton, Judge

Thomas N. Chapman, Judge

C.L.F. appeals from an order entered by the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court of Harrison County ("juvenile court"),¹ which dismissed her juvenile proceeding and transferred her to a court of general jurisdiction for criminal prosecution as an adult pursuant to section 211.071.² C.L.F. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in certifying her to be prosecuted as an adult under the general laws. The juvenile court's order is affirmed.

Background

On August 9, 2021, the Juvenile Officer filed a petition in the juvenile court alleging that C.L.F., who was born in November of 2004, was in need of care and treatment pursuant to section 211.031.1(3) because C.L.F. was alleged to have committed six offenses in violation of state laws, five of which would constitute felonies if committed by an adult. The juvenile officer alleged that C.L.F. committed the following offenses, which would be felonies if committed by an adult: (1) unlawful use of a weapon, a class E felony pursuant to section 571.030 RSMo Cum. Supp. 2018, by knowingly possessing a semi-automatic firearm while possessing the controlled substance, Phentermine, knowing of its presence and nature; (2) first degree tampering, a class D felony pursuant to section 569.080, by knowingly and without the consent of the owner possessing an automobile owned by another; (3) receiving stolen property,³ a class D felony pursuant to section 570.030 RSMo Cum. Supp. 2018, by receiving a semi-automatic firearm knowing or believing it had been stolen with the purpose of depriving the owner of the firearm; (4) receiving stolen property, a class D felony pursuant to section 570.030 RSMo Cum. Supp. 2018, for receiving a debit card knowing or believing it had been stolen with the purpose of depriving the owner of the card of the property; (5) possession of a controlled substance, a class D felony pursuant to section 579.015, by knowingly possessing Phentermine, knowing of its presence and nature. The petition also alleged that C.L.F. violated section 579.015 by knowingly possessing the controlled substance marijuana in an amount of more than ten grams, a class A misdemeanor.

On September 17, 2021, the Juvenile Officer filed a Motion to Dismiss to Allow Prosecution Under General Law, which requested that the juvenile court dismiss the juvenile cause of action and certify C.L.F. to be prosecuted as an adult under the general laws pursuant to section 211.071. The motion was based on the allegations of the five offenses which would be felonies and the Juvenile Officer's position that C.L.F. was not a proper subject to be dealt with under the Juvenile Code based on the statutory criteria set forth in section 211.071.6.

The Juvenile Officer filed a report pursuant to section 211.071.6 containing information relevant to the criteria to be considered by the court in determining whether an order of dismissal and certification was proper. The report contained information regarding the alleged offenses in the petition and C.L.F.’s prior history with the juvenile system. Based on this history, the Juvenile Officer asserted that C.L.F. was beyond rehabilitation under the Juvenile Code.

On November 5, 2021, a hearing was held in front of the juvenile court. The court took judicial notice of two prior juvenile causes of action. When C.L.F. was thirteen, she was found to have committed acts which would constitute the class A misdemeanor of fraudulent use of a credit device, another class A misdemeanor of fraudulent use of a credit device, and the class A misdemeanor of assault in the fourth degree. C.L.F. was directed to complete a psychological evaluation, a restorative justice program and community service, which C.L.F. subsequently completed. C.L.F. was then discharged from further supervision of the juvenile court. When C.L.F. was fifteen, she was found to have committed acts which would constitute aiding in the commission of the class B felony of burglary in the first degree by acting with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the offense of burglary in the first degree in acting as a lookout for E.M., who unlawfully entered the home of two persons for the purpose of committing assault therein. C.L.F. was also found to have aided in the commission of the class C misdemeanor of assault in the fourth degree by acting as a lookout when E.M. struck M.B. multiple times on the head. As a result, C.L.F. was committed to the custody of the Division of Youth Services for an indefinite term.

At the hearing, Jonathan Harris, an officer with the Bethany Police Department, testified that he was investigating a number of break-ins and thefts in Bethany, Missouri in August of 2021. Harris was contacted by Jacob Denum, a deputy sheriff with the Harrison County Sheriff's Office regarding social media postings about a possible stolen vehicle and a photograph of a minor with a potentially stolen gun pointed at her head. Harris testified that he and Denum were given consent to enter and search the home of J.F. (C.L.F.’s mother) by J.F. C.L.F. was located in her bedroom with her boyfriend. Guns, alcohol, stolen debit cards, the controlled substance phentermine, and THC edibles were located in C.L.F's bedroom.

Jack Hutton, a deputy sheriff with the Harrison County Sheriff's Office, testified that he took a report from Sara Campbell, whose vehicle was stolen in August 2021.

Deputy Denum testified that he was contacted by Campbell regarding social media information about Campbell's vehicle and where it was located. Denum testified that there was a picture of C.L.F. on social media along with a message indicating that C.L.F. had the vehicle and had hidden it where it would not be found in Bethany. Denum testified that he also saw a picture on a cell phone in which C.L.F. held a purple handgun to her head while laying in a bed. Denum testified that his office had previously received information regarding the theft of a purple handgun. Denum testified to the same general details regarding his and Officer Harris's entry into and search of C.L.F.’s room. Denum testified that C.L.F. informed him that the purple handgun was in the top shelf of her closet. Denum testified that C.L.F. provided Denum with the location of Campbell's vehicle and provided Denum with the keys to the vehicle. Denum testified that he identified pills found in the room as Phentermine, which Denum testified is a controlled substance weight-loss supplement.

Deputy Juvenile Officer Joe Hamilton testified regarding his familiarity with C.L.F. and her prior juvenile adjudications. Hamilton testified that if the present allegations were left to be addressed in the juvenile court, and, if C.L.F. was ultimately committed to the Division of Youth Services, then the maximum amount of time that C.L.F. would stay with the Division of Youth Services would be until she was 18, which was approximately one year from the time of the November 5, 2021 hearing. Hamilton testified that C.L.F.’s one prior commitment and two prior stays at the Division of Youth Services had not effected a change in C.L.F.’s behavior. Hamilton testified that C.L.F.’s behaviors had been escalating, that the allegations of her conduct involved multiple victims, and that C.L.F. demonstrated knowledge of an active involvement in crimes against multiple victims. Hamilton testified that if C.L.F. was not certified to be prosecuted under the general laws, the only option available to the juvenile court would be the Division of Youth Services, but that C.L.F. had been placed with the Division of Youth Services twice previously with no success.

J.F., C.L.F.’s mother, testified regarding comments made by C.L.F. indicating that C.L.F. did not take her behaviors or juvenile proceedings seriously. J.F. testified that C.L.F. informed J.F. that C.L.F. could do anything she pleased until she was eighteen, and that C.L.F. referred to the Division of Youth Services as "kiddy jail." J.F. testified that she supported C.L.F. being certified as an adult.

Following the hearing, the juvenile court entered an order which dismissed the juvenile cause of action and transferred C.L.F. to the court of general jurisdiction for prosecution. The order included findings regarding the statutory criteria set forth in section 211.071.6. The juvenile court concluded that C.L.F. was not a proper subject to be dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Code.

C.L.F. now appeals to this court.

Standard of Review

In reviewing a section 211.071 order⁴ of dismissal to permit a child to be prosecuted under the general laws, an appellate court must determine whether the juvenile court abused its discretion based on the totality of the circumstances. J.N.W. v. Juvenile Officer , 643 S.W.3d 618, 631 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022). "A juvenile court abuses its discretion if its ‘ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances before it and is so unreasonable and arbitrary as to shock the sense of justice and indicates a lack of judicial consideration.’ " Id. (quoting In Interest of T.M.L. , 615 S.W.3d 100, 102 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) ). "In reviewing a juvenile court's determination for abuse of discretion, we will not reweigh the evidence or determine the reliability or credibility of witnesses." Id. (citing State v. Thomas , 70 S.W.3d 496, 504 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002) ).

Analysis

In her sole point on appeal, C.L.F. contends that the circuit court abused its discretion in certifying her to be prosecuted as an adult because she was a proper subject to be treated and rehabilitated in the juvenile system. In particular, C.L.F. argues that...