IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN THE MATTER OF: M.C., A MINOR, No. 67700
M.C.,
Appellant, FILED
vs. JAN 1 42016
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
LI .EMAN
Respondent. E COU '11
BY .7 r no+
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from an order certifying a child for criminal
proceedings as an adult. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court
Division, Clark County; William 0. Voy, Judge.
M.C. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion in
certifying her because it concluded that the nature and seriousness of the
charged offenses alone warranted certification without considering her
individual characteristics and experiences. She argues that the juvenile
court must take into account a juvenile's individual characteristics and
experiences when analyzing the nature and seriousness of charged
offenses and cites to numerous United States Supreme Court cases to
support her argument.
We conclude that the juvenile court properly considered the
nature and seriousness of the charged offenses. The cases cited by M.C. do
not address certification proceedings but primarily focus on considerations
when a juvenile is already in the adult criminal system. There currently
is no requirement that a juvenile's individual characteristics and
experiences be taken into account when considering the nature and
seriousness of the crime. See In the Matter of Seven Minors, 99 Nev. 427,
664 P.2d 947 (1983), disapproved of on other grounds by Matter of William
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(th 194M ce
S., 122 Nev. 432, 132 P.3d 1015 (2006). But even if there were such a
requirement, it appears that the juvenile court took M.C.'s individual
characteristics and experiences into account. While the juvenile court
made a finding that the nature of the offenses in this matter was so
heinous and egregious to warrant certification alone, it noted M.C.'s lack
of previously admitted and adjudicated offenses, her age, and her life
story, which was extensively put on the record during briefing and oral
argument of the matter. In its order granting certification, the juvenile
court concluded that M.C.'s "subjective factors do not outweigh the nature
and seriousness of the offenses." See id at 435, 664 P.2d at 952-53.
Therefore, it appears that the juvenile court did consider M.C.'s individual
characteristics and experiences and determined that certification was
warranted. Accordingly, we conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its
discretion, see In the Matter of Eric A.L., 123 Nev. 26, 33, 153 P.3d 32, 36
(2007), and we
ORDER the judgment of the juvenile court AFFIRMED.
Hardesty
Sailta Pickering
Pide&t.tuf_, J.
cc: Hon. William 0. Voy, District Judge, Family Court Division
Clark County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A ero
c5c. ? •