FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH DIVISION [NO.
60CR-16-3702] HONORABLE HERBERT T. WRIGHT, JR., JUDGE
Willard Proctor, Jr., P.A., by: Willard Proctor, Jr., for
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Jason Michael Johnson,
Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, JUDGE.
Hubbard appeals the Pulaski County Circuit Court order
denying his motion to transfer his case to the juvenile
division of the circuit court. On appeal, he argues that the
circuit court erred by (1) failing to make findings pursuant
to Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-318(g)(1) (Repl.
2015); (2) finding that his culpability appeared to be equal
to that of his accomplice; and (3) finding that the resources
available in the juvenile division of the circuit court were
not likely to rehabilitate him by the time he reached the age
of twenty-one. We affirm.
October 12, 2016, the State charged Hubbard in the criminal
division of the Pulaski County Circuit Court with
first-degree battery, terroristic act, aggravated assault,
and possession of a handgun by a minor. On November 11, 2016,
Hubbard filed a motion to transfer the case to the juvenile
division of the circuit court. The court held a hearing on
January 9, 2017.
hearing, Michael Lundy, a detective for the Little Rock
Police Department, testified that he responded to a call at
the residence of Pablo Laredo on September 6, 2016. When
Lundy arrived at the scene, Pablo reported to Lundy that
while he was performing mechanic work on his car outside his
residence, he felt something pressed against his head. An
individual then said, "Excuse me, sir, " and when
Pablo turned around, he saw Hubbard pointing a firearm at
him. Pablo grabbed a grease gun and started fighting Hubbard.
He then noticed the shadow of a second individual who also
had a gun. Pablo screamed for his brother, José
Laredo, who was inside the residence. José helped
Pablo subdue Hubbard, and they hog-tied him until the police
arrived. During the altercation, Pablo sustained two gunshot
wounds to his shoulder, a swollen eye, and various
lacerations and abrasions to his body. However, Lundy
testified that Pablo could not identify whether Hubbard or
the second individual had shot him.
Wilkins, a juvenile-probation officer, testified that Hubbard
first entered the juvenile-detention facility in April 2016.
He explained that probable cause was found for the arrest but
that the court released Hubbard to his mother's custody
with the conditions that he attend school, comply with a
curfew, call his probation officer weekly, and refrain from
using drugs and alcohol. He noted that Hubbard mostly
complied with the conditions and that he called the probation
office regularly, but not weekly. Wilkins explained that in
June 2016, the court adjudicated Hubbard as a juvenile
delinquent based on the April charges. Wilkins explained that
after the June 2016 adjudication, the State charged Hubbard
again. However, the court did not find probable cause for
those charges, and Hubbard was once again released to his
mother's custody with the same conditions. He was then
charged in the instant case. Wilkins testified that if the
court transferred the case back to the juvenile division,
Hubbard could receive counseling, commitment to the
Department of Youth Services or the detention facility,
random drug screens, and probation. He believed that Hubbard
could be rehabilitated with these services.
Tanner, the juvenile ombudsman, testified at the hearing. He
explained that the State of Arkansas has developed
rehabilitative services to help juvenile offenders develop
skills to complete their education, enter the workforce, and
comport behaviors. He referenced the C-Step program through
the National Guard, the United Family Services program, and
the Arkansas Dream Center. He noted that the Arkansas Dream
Center is located in the neighborhood where Hubbard's
grandfather resides and that the center offers structure,
tutoring, counseling, and community mentoring.
Hubbard, Hubbard's mother, testified that her son turned
sixteen on July 25, 2016, and that he is immature. She
believed that the rehabilitation program through the juvenile
court could help him. She explained that he had been
adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent on only one occasion and
noted that he had been charged in another case but that
probable cause was not found. She stated that in the case in
which he was adjudicated delinquent, other juveniles were
involved and that Hubbard had problems with peer pressure.
She stated that she had discussed the instant charges with
her son, and she believed his actions had resulted from peer
pressure. She noted that the second individual involved in
the instant charges is older than Hubbard. She also testified
that Hubbard had been diagnosed with attention deficit
Davis, the founder and executive director of the Arkansas
Dream Center, testified that he has known Hubbard since 2009.
He testified that Hubbard has potential but that he is a
follower and has followed the wrong people. Davis explained
that when Hubbard is released, he will begin the program at
the Arkansas Dream Center and that the program will require
him to be at the center from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. every
day. He noted that they would develop a plan for school but
that the Little Rock School District probably would not allow
Hubbard to return. He believed that Hubbard could be
rehabilitated if given the opportunity. He admitted that
about two or three years before the hearing, Hubbard had been
attending the center daily. However, he explained that
children do not grasp the consequences of their actions until
they get older.
conclusion of the hearing, the court orally denied the
transfer motion and made findings of fact pursuant to
Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-318(g). On January 13,
2017, the court entered a written order. Hubbard timely
appealed the order to this court. On appeal, Hubbard argues
that the circuit court erred by (1) failing to make findings
under Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-318(g)(1); (2)
finding that his culpability appeared to be equal to his
accomplice; and (3) finding that the resources available in
the juvenile division of the circuit court were not likely to
rehabilitate him by the time he reached the age of
not reverse a circuit court's decision denying a motion
to transfer unless it is clearly erroneous. Nichols v.
State, 2015 Ark.App. 397, 466 S.W.3d 431. A finding is
clearly erroneous when, after reviewing the evidence, the
appellate court is left with a firm and definite conviction
that a mistake was made. Id. As we have held many
times, appellate courts will not reweigh the evidence
presented to the circuit court. See Clem v. State,
351 Ark. 112, 90 S.W.3d 428, (2002).
Code Annotated section 9-27-318(g) sets forth all the factors
the court ...