State v. Elias G.

302 Conn. 39 (2011) · Supreme Court of Connecticut · August 9, 2011

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court held that State v. Fernandes controlled the state’s appeal from the denial of a motion to transfer juvenile charges to the regular criminal docket. The court concluded that the juvenile court lacked discretion to deny the transfer under General Statutes § 46b-127 (b), while due process required a hearing in the criminal court before the transfer was finalized. The court reversed and remanded with direction to grant the state’s motion to transfer.

Court
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the Court
McLachlan, J.; Harper; McLachlan; Norcott; Palmer; Rogers; Zarella
Jurisdiction
Connecticut
Decision date
August 9, 2011
Procedural posture
The state appealed from the juvenile court's denial of its motion to transfer two cases against the defendant from the juvenile docket to the regular criminal docket under General Statutes § 46b-127 (b). The appeal was certified directly to the Supreme Court from an interlocutory ruling.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the legal interpretation of General Statutes § 46b-127 (b) and the applicability of controlling precedent de novo. The court also reviewed whether the state waived its appellate claim.
Precedential value
Published and precedential Connecticut Supreme Court opinion.
Parties
State v. Elias G.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

criminal proceduredue processstatutory interpretationappellate jurisdictionappellate procedure

Practice areas

juvenile justicecriminal procedureconstitutional lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether State v. Fernandes controlled the state's appeal from the juvenile court's denial of transfer under General Statutes § 46b-127 (b).
  2. Whether the Supreme Court's interpretation of § 46b-127 (b) in Fernandes applied retroactively to this pending appeal.
  3. Whether the state waived its claim that transfer was within the discretion of the prosecutor rather than the juvenile court.
  4. Whether the case should be reversed and remanded for transfer to the regular criminal docket.

Holdings

  1. State v. Fernandes controlled the present case; the juvenile court's denial of the state's motion to transfer was legally incorrect.
  2. Fernandes applies retroactively to this pending appeal.
  3. The state did not waive its right to appellate review by failing to articulate its claim with greater clarity in the juvenile court.

Key quotations

Consistent with due process requirements, before the transfer of the defendant’s cases to the regular criminal docket has been finalized, the defendant is entitled to a hearing before the court on the regular criminal docket, at which the defendant can be heard and the court can decide whether the transfer shall be finalized. (46)
We conclude that there is no reason why Fernandes does not control. (44)

Factual background

In January 2010, when he was fifteen, Elias G. was charged in two informations with second-degree larceny, third-degree burglary, and fourth-degree larceny. The state sought transfer of the class C and class D felony charges from the juvenile docket to the regular criminal docket. The juvenile court denied transfer based on its assessment of the interests of justice, the state's interests, and public safety.

Procedural history

The fifteen-year-old defendant was charged with larceny and burglary offenses. The state moved to transfer the cases to the regular criminal docket, but the juvenile court denied the motion after determining that the interests of justice, the state, and public safety favored retaining jurisdiction. While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided State v. Fernandes, and ordered supplemental briefing on whether Fernandes controlled. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with direction to grant the transfer motion.

Remand instructions

The case was remanded with direction to grant the state's motion to transfer the cases to the regular criminal docket. Before finalization of the transfer, the defendant is entitled to a hearing before the regular criminal court at which he may be heard and the court may decide whether the transfer should be finalized.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…