Waiver of jurisdiction; Statutory factors; MCL 712A.4(4); Right to a jury trial; Distinguishing Apprendi v New Jersey

The court affirmed “the order of the family division of the circuit court waiving jurisdiction in this matter to the court of general criminal jurisdiction for arraignment of respondent as an adult.” Respondent argued “that the family division incorrectly evaluated the statutory factors when determining whether to waive its jurisdiction, and” that the waiver violated his constitutional right to trial by jury. The court concluded “that the circuit court thoroughly addressed the statutory factors, including the inadequacy of programing options in the juvenile system, made findings based upon the record, and correctly gave the greatest weight to factor (a), the seriousness of the offense, and factor (c) the juvenile’s prior record of delinquency.” It further concluded “that the trial court did not err by finding that the statutory factors favored waiver, and” thus, it did not abuse its discretion by waiving jurisdiction. As to his right to trial by jury argument, he asserted “that he is likely to receive a harsher penalty if convicted as an adult than he would receive in juvenile court, and that therefore he is entitled to have the waiver determination made by jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The family division’s waiver of respondent to the criminal court, however, is not a fact. The waiver determination has no bearing on any element of the offense and is not a ‘factual determination’ that increases respondent’s penalty ‘beyond the prescribed statutory maximum.’” The court noted that he “has not yet been tried, with or without a jury, nor has he been convicted of or sentenced for any offense. The task before the family division of the circuit court was to determine whether to waive its jurisdiction over [him] in this case. The waiver of a juvenile respondent to criminal court is a procedural mechanism by which jurisdiction is transferred from the family division of the circuit court to the general criminal court; it is not a finding of any fact bearing on any element of the offense, nor is it a determination of guilt or the imposition of a sentence. By waiving its jurisdiction over respondent in this case, the circuit court did not stray into the realm of fact-finding addressed by the Court in Apprendi, nor did [it] otherwise violate respondent’s right to a jury trial on whatever charge he may face in criminal court. Rather, the circuit court followed the procedure mandated by statute when a prosecutor seeks traditional waiver of a juvenile respondent to general criminal court, which does not include a jury trial on the issue of waiver.”