STATE IN THE INTEREST OF D.G.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6495-04T26495-04T2

STATE IN THE INTEREST OF D.G.

_____________________________

 

Submitted: September 12, 2006 - Decided September 19, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Lihotz.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Cumberland County FJ-06-1920-05, FJ-06-1921-05, FJ-06-1922-05, FJ-06-1923-05.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for juvenile appellant D.G. (Lon Taylor, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Ronald J. Casella, Cumberland County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Walter A. Schultz, Jr., Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

D.G., a juvenile charged with conduct that, if attributed to an adult, would constitute five instances of first-degree robbery, appeals, on leave granted, from a Family Part order, entered pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26a, granting the State's motion for involuntary waiver of jurisdiction over the charges to the Law Division. As required by the terms of N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26e, because this juvenile was over sixteen years of age and had been charged with an act enumerated in N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26a(2)(a), the waiver determination was made without consideration of the probability of his rehabilitation by age nineteen. The trial court stayed its order "pending a disposition of the interlocutory appeal" and set bail.

Our review of the record in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties and prevailing legal standards discloses that Judge Waters reached the result mandated by the Legislature in the circumstances at hand. Given the statutory scheme, it is not for us or the trial court to determine whether it is appropriate, on a waiver motion, to consider issues bearing upon the juvenile's likelihood of rehabilitation by age nineteen, including particularized factors such as personal history and circumstances that might influence such an evaluation. The Legislature has ordained otherwise. In the absence of a constitutional defect not argued here beyond a generalized claim of due process denial by reason of the omission to consider the rehabilitation question it is not within the judiciary's province to make a contrary determination. The mandate of N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26e is clear on its face. We discern no choices on the prosecutor's part in the instant case that varied from the standards contained in the Attorney General's guidelines promulgated for application in such matters, as required by N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26f.

We affirm substantially for the reasons articulated by Judge Waters in his oral opinion rendered on July 8, 2005.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-6495-04T2

RECORD IMPOUNDED

September 19, 2006