In Re: M. C., a Minor

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. ? •