## Facts

- Louis Ricardo Butler was 15 years old when charged in circuit court with three counts of aggravated robbery (Class Y felonies) and three counts of theft of property.
- The charges arose from three separate incidents in July and August 1994 involving robberies of pizza delivery drivers by Butler and another youth.
- Drivers were robbed at gunpoint in at least two incidents and threatened with a brick or rock in another.
- The State filed a felony information in circuit court; a delinquency petition was also mistakenly filed in juvenile court for one incident.
- Butler moved to transfer the case to juvenile court under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318.
- At the transfer hearing, the court heard testimony from Butler’s parents, an alternative-school counselor, and a police detective who described the robberies and stated Butler confessed to two.
- The State also introduced evidence of prior juvenile matters through two delinquency petitions.
- The circuit court denied transfer, stating on the record that the case should remain in circuit court given the circumstances and Butler’s participation.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to try a 15-year-old for theft of property when theft was not among the offenses listed for original circuit-court filing under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318(b)(1).
2. Whether the circuit court clearly erred in denying transfer of the aggravated-robbery charges to juvenile court under the statutory transfer factors and the “clear and convincing evidence” standard.
3. Whether due process required detailed written, factor-by-factor findings supporting the denial of transfer.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court held the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the three theft-of-property counts because theft was not an enumerated offense permitting original circuit-court jurisdiction for a 15-year-old under § 9-27-318(b)(1).
- The theft counts were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court affirmed the denial of transfer on the three aggravated-robbery counts, concluding the seriousness and violent nature of the offenses provided clear and convincing support for retaining circuit-court jurisdiction.
- The court rejected the due-process challenge to the transfer ruling, holding the statute did not require detailed written findings on each factor when the record showed the court considered the evidence and applicable law.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the aggravated-robbery counts only.

## Legal Principles

- Circuit-court jurisdiction over juvenile defendants is strictly statutory; prosecutors cannot create jurisdiction by filing charges in circuit court when the offense is not listed for original circuit-court filing or properly transferred under statutory procedures.
- When an offense is not enumerated in Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318(b)(1), circuit court lacks original jurisdiction over that charge against a juvenile of the relevant age, and the charge must be dismissed if improperly filed there.
- On a motion to transfer to juvenile court, the juvenile bears the burden to show transfer is warranted; if met, transfer should be granted unless clear and convincing countervailing evidence supports retention in circuit court.
- Appellate review of a transfer ruling is for clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State.
- The seriousness and violent nature of an enumerated offense (such as aggravated robbery) may alone provide sufficient grounds to deny transfer when the court has considered the statutory factors.
- The transfer statute does not require detailed written findings on each statutory factor; a record showing consideration of the evidence and the law is sufficient.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the theft counts because circuit court lacked statutory jurisdiction over non-enumerated offenses charged against a 15-year-old, but it upheld trying Butler as an adult on aggravated-robbery charges because the violent, serious nature of the repeated robberies supplied clear and convincing support to deny transfer to juvenile court without requiring detailed written findings.


Butler v. State, 324 Ark. 476, 922 S.W.2d 685 (Ark. 1996)