Waiver of jurisdiction over respondent; MCL 712A.4(4) factors; Seriousness of the crimes; Culpability; Prior record of delinquency; Programming history; Adequacy of punishment or programming available in the juvenile system; Dispositional options; Suitability of the programs & facilities available in the adult system

Finding that the “family court adequately considered the statutory factors, and its ultimate conclusion was principled and reasoned,” the court held that respondent-juvenile did not establish “that the family court erred when it waived its jurisdiction over” him. Thus, it affirmed the order waiving jurisdiction over him and transferring proceedings to the criminal division. “At the Phase II hearing governed by MCL 712A.4(4) and MCR 3.950(D)(2), the family court found that the interests of the public and the juvenile would be served by waiving jurisdiction and transferring proceedings to the circuit court.” As to the seriousness of the crimes, he argued “that the family court abused its discretion by determining that this factor supported waiver because [his] alleged crimes were property crimes that did not involve respondent’s use of a weapon. However, the family court acknowledged this potential argument and found that it was not persuasive[.]” Also, while “family courts are required to consider the statutory factors, [they] retain the discretion to consider other facts to make the ultimate determination whether to waive jurisdiction over a juvenile.” In this case, “the family court discussed the risks that respondent faced by associating with other individuals who did have weapons[.]” Further, the court held that “the fact that no one was physically injured during respondent’s alleged property crimes does not preclude a finding that the offenses were serious enough to support waiver.” Thus, the “family court did not err when it considered the specific facts of respondent’s case and determined that MCL 712A.4(4)(a) weighed in favor of waiver.” Also, it found that “the family court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that MCL 712A.4(4)(b) supported waiver.” Respondent correctly observed “that there was no specific testimony at the Phase II hearing regarding whether [he] was involved in planning the alleged crimes. But the family court could reasonably infer from the evidence of [his] participation in nearly all aspects of the crime spree that he was involved in at least some planning.” Additionally, the family court’s finding as to his “prior record of juvenile delinquency does not fall ‘outside the range of principled outcomes’ and, accordingly, is not an abuse of discretion.” The court also found that the “family court adequately considered” factor (d) “and did not abuse its discretion by finding that” it weighed in favor of waiver. As to the adequacy of juvenile punishment or programming, its findings were supported by Officer W’s “testimony that respondent had trouble staying away from negative peers and that ‘a good majority’ of [his] involvement with the judicial system was a result of the influence of inappropriate peers.” Finally, the court held that while “the family court did not explicitly consider available adult programming, [it] did not clearly err or abuse its discretion.”