Speck v. Auger

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6John Lee Speck appeals from the District Court’s1 denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We affirm.

¶7In January, 1975, petitioner, who was then a minor, and his companion robbed the Douglas Avenue Fina Station in Des Moines, Iowa. Petitioner was arrested and proceedings were begun against him in juvenile court. The county attorney moved to have the juvenile court transfer the case to the county attorney for disposition in the adult criminal courts, pursuant to Iowa Code Ann. § 232.72 which provides in pertinent part:

When a petition alleging delinquency is based on an alleged act committed after the minor’s fourteenth birthday, and the court, after a hearing, deems it contrary to the best interest of the minor or the public to retain jurisdiction, the court may enter an order making such findings and referring the alleged violation to the appropriate prosecuting authority for proper action under the criminal law.

¶8The juvenile court judge granted the motion to transfer for the following reasons: (1) there was a prima facie case defendant committed, by force, violence, and putting into fear, a robbery with a gun with intent to kill or maim if resisted; (2) Speck, a school dropout, had previously appeared in juvenile court, had been committed to the Boys Training School and upon violation of a probationary release, had been returned to Eldora; and (3) since the crime was a premeditated and violent one not normally committed by youths and one which would endanger the mental health and life of other persons, it was in the best interest of the child and state to transfer the matter.2

¶9Petitioner was subsequently tried as an adult, convicted of robbery with aggravation in violation of Iowa Code Ann. §§ 771.-1, 771.2, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment not to exceed 25 years. His conviction was affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court. State v. Speck, 242 N.W.2d 287 (Iowa 1976). Petitioner thereupon filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied without a hearing. This timely appeal ensued.

¶10Petitioner’s sole allegation on appeal is that the Iowa transfer statute, § 232.72, is unconstitutionally vague. His argument centers on the phrase “contrary to the best interest of the minor or the public” as the standard which must be met before trans*396fer to adult criminal authorities is proper. The thrust of his contention is that this language does not enumerate specific factors to be considered by the juvenile court in making the transfer decision, and this lack of specific criteria renders the statute unconstitutionally vague because it imper-missibly delegates basic policy matters to the juvenile court, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. See, e.g., Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972).

¶11The starting point for a discussion of juvenile transfer statutes is Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966). In Kent, the Supreme Court held that the transfer of custody of a youthful offender from juvenile to adult courts must be accomplished with certain protections consistent with due process.3 The Court in Kent did not, however, address the issue of what standards must be considered in making the transfer decision.4 Indeed, the Supreme Court has recently said:

In Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. at 562, 86 S.Ct. at 1057, the Court held that hearings under the statute there involved “must measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment.” However, the Court has never attempted to prescribe criteria for, or the nature and quantum of evidence that must support, a decision to transfer a juvenile for trial in adult court.

¶12Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 537, 95 S.Ct. 1779, 1790, 44 L.Ed.2d 346 (1975).

¶13It is a basic premise that a federal court reviewing a state statute against a challenge that it is void for vagueness must read the statute “as though it read precisely as the highest court of the State has interpreted it.” Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21, 22-23, 94 S.Ct. 190, 192, 38 L.Ed.2d 179 (1973), quoting Minnesota ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court, 309 U.S. 270, 273, 60 S.Ct. 523, 84 L.Ed. 744 (1940). In State v. Halverson, 192 N.W.2d 765 (Iowa 1971), the Iowa Supreme Court discussed the issues to be considered in a transfer hearing:

In the transfer hearing the court is concerned with such issues as the amenability of the child to the rehabilitative measures available to the juvenile court, the necessity of safeguarding the public from the child, and the heinousness of the alleged offense.

¶14Id. at 769. See also State v. Anthony, 239 N.W.2d 850, 851 (Iowa 1976).

¶15*397In addition, on petitioner’s direct appeal the Supreme Court of Iowa noted that the juvenile court transfer order in the instant case dealt with seven of the eight considerations listed in the appendix to Kent v. United States, supra.5The Iowa court went on to say:

Although the Court in Kent did not ex-oressly adopt the criteria . . ., the fact they are appendixed [sic] to the Court’s opinion suggests their appropriateness as guidelines for juvenile court waiver proceedings.

Implementation of these standards [“the best interests of the minor or the public”] may be guided by consideration of the criteria set out in Kent as well as any others which may arise under the particular facts.

¶16State v. Speck, supra,242 N.W.2d at 293, 294. Thus, the state’s highest court has construed the statute to require consideration of certain enumerated factors in making the transfer decision.

¶17Petitioner contends that this limiting construction does not cure the alleged vagueness because the phrase, “as well as any others which may arise under the particular facts,” leaves a juvenile court free to consider any factors. This amounts to little more than contending that the statute must fall because it fails to enumerate every factor which a juvenile court could properly consider. We find this approach wholly unpersuasive. The transfer statute, as interpreted by the Iowa Supreme Court, is marked by “flexibility and reasonable breadth, rather than meticulous specificity.” See Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 415 F.2d 1077, 1088 (8th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 965, 90 S.Ct. 2169, 26 L.Ed.2d 548 (1970). The statute and its judicial gloss does leave certain latitude for the juvenile court, but it does not confer upon the court “a license for arbitrary procedures.” Kent v. United States, supra,383 U.S. at 553, 86 S.Ct. 1045. We conclude that the Iowa transfer statute is not unconstitutionally vague.

¶18Accordingly, the order of the District Court is affirmed.