In re N.D.D.
N.D.D. was 17 years old when he and a friend took a couple of go-karts out for a joyride. Though the vehicles were ultimately returned, N.D.D. was arrested and charged with a felony. Rather than have the matter adjudicated in juvenile court, however, the prosecutor petitioned to have the case waived (or transferred) to adult criminal court where N.D.D. faced up to five years in prison if convicted. In Michigan, while most serious felonies committed by youth over 14 are automatically tried in criminal court where the court retains discretion to impose a juvenile sentence, for any other felony-level offense by someone over 14 the prosecutor can ask the juvenile court to transfer the case for criminal prosecution; if the juvenile court finds probable cause supports the charge and the best interests of the youth and the public would be served by criminal prosecution, the court has the discretion to transfer the case and the criminal court must impose an adult sentence upon conviction. After N.D.D. waived his right to challenge probable cause for his offense, the juvenile court, after a hearing, found it was in both N.D.D.’s and the public’s interest to prosecute and sentence him in criminal court and issued a transfer order. Michigan’s Court of Appeals affirmed the order on appeal.
After petitioning the Michigan Supreme Court for review, the highest court agreed to hear N.D.D.’s challenge to the transfer order and set an initial hearing to determine the scope of its review. In addition to challenging that a transfer to criminal court for joyriding on a go-kart was in N.D.D.’s and the public’s best interests, N.D.D. also challenged that Michigan’s discretionary transfer process violates his right to trial by jury under U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Apprendi v. New Jersey.
Juvenile Law Center, along with its partners at ACLU of Michigan and the Center for Civil Rights and Critical Justice, and joined by numerous civil rights and criminal justice organizations filed an amicus brief asking the Michigan Supreme Court to also take up the question of whether Michigan’s discretionary transfer process violates Michigan’s prohibition on cruel or unusual punishment under Article 1, Section 16 of the Michigan Constitution, for subjecting a transferred youth to mandatory adult sentencing, and at minimum, to determine if N.D.D.’s transfer amounts to cruel or unusual punishment for subjecting him to a severe criminal sentence and the lifelong collateral consequences of a criminal record for an offense that clearly reflects a 17-year-old’s transient immaturity.
LEGAL TEAM
Attorneys
Andrew Keats, Jessica Feierman
Paralegals
Spencer Symula