No. 19-7198

B. T. D. v. Alabama

Lower Court: Alabama
Docketed: 2020-01-07
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-vagueness criminal-procedure due-process equal-protection juvenile-justice juvenile-transfer serious-physical-injury standing vagueness
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure Punishment
Latest Conference: 2020-02-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does a child have due process rights to a judicial determination of whether his/her case should remain in juvenile court or should be transferred to adult criminal court?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Seventeen-year-old B.T.D. was involved in a Sunday afternoon fight in a Walmart parking lot. Although B.T.D. had no prior juvenile delinquency adjudications, the State automatically transferred his case to adult court for prosecution by obtaining an indictment for Assault in the Second Degree, claiming that the victim sustained a “serious physical injury.” The trial court dismissed the case, holding that the automatic transfer provision under which B.T.D. was charged (§ 12-15-204(a)(4) Ala. Code 1975) violated substantive and procedural due process, and was unconstitutionally vague. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that since the legislature created juvenile court jurisdiction, the legislature could extinguish it by adopting an automatic transfer statute. The questions presented are: L Does a child have due process rights to a judicial determination of whether his/her case should remain in juvenile court or should be transferred to adult criminal court? I. Is the language of § 12-15-204(a)(4) Ala. Code 1975: “a felony which has an element thereof the causing of ... serious physical injury” unconstitutionally vague? i

Docket Entries

2020-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2020-01-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2020-01-14
Waiver of right of respondent State of Alabama to respond filed.
2019-01-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 6, 2020)

Attorneys

B.T.D.
Gary L. BlumeBlume & Blume, Attorneys at Law, PC, Petitioner
Gary L. BlumeBlume & Blume, Attorneys at Law, PC, Petitioner
State of Alabama
Edmund Gerard LaCour Jr.Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Edmund Gerard LaCour Jr.Office of the Attorney General, Respondent