In the Matter of the Welfare of: M. K. T., Child.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-JV-12-11212
David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Leslie J. Rosenberg, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Annsara Lovejoy Elasky, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Schellhas, Judge.
Appellant challenges the district court's designation of his prosecution as an extended jurisdiction juvenile (EJJ) prosecution, arguing that the court clearly erred by finding that the EJJ designation serves public safety. We affirm.
Respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant M.K.T. with one count of aiding and abetting first-degree aggravated robbery under Minn. Stat. §§ 609.245, subd. 1, .05 (2012), a felony, on or around December 8, 2012. As of December 18, 2012, M.K.T. was 16 years old. The state moved the district court to designate M.K.T.'s prosecution as EJJ. The district court conducted a hearing on the state's EJJ motion and admitted into evidence a DVD video recording of the offense; a probation officer's EJJ report and addendum, recommending that M.K.T.'s prosecution be designated EJJ; and a psychological evaluation of M.K.T. The court also heard argument of counsel. The district court designated the prosecution EJJ.
This appeal follows.
M.K.T. challenges the EJJ designation of the prosecution against him. "The EJJ designation was conceived to provide a more graduated juvenile justice system based on age and offense with a new transitional component between the juvenile and adult systems." State v. Garcia, 683 N.W.2d 294, 300 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted). An EJJ designation "extends jurisdiction over a young person to age twenty-one and permits the court to impose both a juvenile disposition and a criminal sentence." State v. J.E.S., 763 N.W.2d 64, 67 (Minn.App. 2009) (quotation omitted).
The district court must grant a prosecutor's request for EJJ prosecution "[i]f the prosecutor shows by clear and convincing evidence that [doing so] serves public safety." Minn. Stat. § 260B.130, subd. 2 (2012). An appellate court "review[s] under a clearly erroneous standard the juvenile court's finding that the prosecutor proved by clear and convincing evidence that public safety would be served by designating [the juvenile] prosecution EJJ." In re Welfare of D.M.D., 607 N.W.2d 432, 437 (Minn. 2000).
"In determining whether public safety is served, the court shall consider the factors specified in section 260B.125, subdivision 4, " ...