This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. ' 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J.R., Child.
Filed August 6, 1996
Ramsey County District Court
File No. J394554879
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Charlann E. Winking, Assistant Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue S.E., Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for Appellant J.R.)
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for Respondent Ramsey County)
Susan E. Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Kathryn A. Santelmann, Eric P. Johnson, Assistant County Attorneys, 50 West Kellogg Boulevard, Suite 315, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for Respondent Ramsey County)
Considered and decided by Parker, Presiding Judge, Short, Judge, and Foley, Judge.*
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
The trial court certified J.R., a juvenile, for prosecution as an adult on one count of aiding and abetting second-degree murder (with intent) in violation of Minn. Stat. '' 609.19(1), 609.11, 609.05, and one count of aiding and abetting second-degree murder (without intent) in violation of Minn. Stat. '' 609.19(2), 609.11, 609.05. On appeal from that certification order, J.R. argues the record lacks clear and convincing evidence that the public safety will not be served if she is retained in the juvenile system and designated an extended jurisdiction juvenile. We affirm.
D E C I S I O N
A presumption of certification applies when a sixteen- or seventeen-year-old uses a firearm to commit a felony offense or an offense with a presumptive executed sentence under the sentencing guidelines. Minn. Stat. ' 260.125, subd. 2a (Supp. 1995). It is undisputed that J.R. was fourteen years old at the time of the August 1995 offenses. Therefore, no presumption of certification applies.
In a nonpresumptive case, the juvenile court may order certification if the state demonstrates "by clear and convincing evidence that retaining the proceeding in the juvenile court does not serve public safety." Id., subd. 2(6)(ii) (Supp. 1995). We will not reverse a certification determination unless the juvenile court's findings are so clearly erroneous as to constitute an abuse of discretion. In re Welfare of J.L.B., 435 N.W.2d 595, 598 (Minn. App. 1989), review denied (Minn. Mar. 17, 1989); see also In re Welfare of J.F.K., 316 N.W.2d 563, 564 (Minn. 1982) (applying an abuse of discretion standard to certification proceedings).
In determining whether certification will serve public safety, the juvenile court must consider: (1) the seriousness of the alleged offense, including the existence of aggravating factors, the use of a firearm, and the impact on any victim; (2) the culpability of the child in committing the alleged offense, including the child's participation in planning and executing the crime; (3) the child's prior record of delinquency; (4) the child's programming history, including the child's past willingness to participate meaningfully in available programming; (5) the adequacy of punishment or programming available in the juvenile justice system; and (6) the dispositional options available for the child. Minn. Stat. ' 260.125, subd. 2b (Supp. 1995). The juvenile court must give greater weight to the seriousness of the alleged offense and the child's prior record of delinquency than to the other factors. Id.
J.R. argues the state failed to prove that retaining J.R. in the juvenile system would not serve the public safety. We disagree. The record establishes: (1) J.R. knew the victim was particularly vulnerable due to intoxication before the murder; (2) J.R. participated in the planning and execution of the crime; (3) J.R. concealed the sawed-off shotgun in her pants and shouted "shoot him"; (4) after the murder, J.R. retrieved the weapon to protect her identity; (5) previously, J.R. had physically attacked a police officer; (6) J.R. has a sophisticated understanding of gangs and drugs; (7) J.R. was charged with assault while in juvenile detention awaiting resolution of this matter; and (8) J.R. has a history of absconding from shelters. In addition, expert testimony established that J.R. has integrated the values of the gang subculture and is reckless, capable of violence, and possesses contempt for authority. Based on our review of this record, we conclude the juvenile court acted within its broad discretion in finding clear and convincing evidence that public safety would not be served by retaining J.R. in the juvenile system.
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, ' 10.