State v. Rollins ( 2021 )

IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE
STATE OF DELAWARE )
)
v. ) Crim. ID No. 2011008281
)
DARNELL ROLLINS, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Submitted: December 13, 2021
Decided: December 17, 2021
Upon Consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Charges to Family Court,
DENIED.
Matthew C. Buckworth, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice,
Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for State.
Kimberly A. Price, Esquire, Collins & Price, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for
Defendant.
MEDINILLA, J.
1
I. INTRODUCTION
At 16,1 Defendant Darnell Rollins (“Defendant”) stands accused of Possession
of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony (PFDCF), Possession of a Firearm
by a Juvenile Prohibited, Carrying a Concealed Deadly Weapon, and three counts of
Reckless Endangering First Degree.2 He seeks to transfer his charges to Family
Court under 10 Del. C. § 1011. A reverse amenability hearing was held on
December 13, 2021. Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions, oral argument,
and the record in this case, Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Charges to Family Court
must be DENIED.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY3
On November 18, 2020, the Wilmington Police Department responded to a
call to investigate a shots fired incident that occurred around 2:13 p.m. in the area of
24th and Market Streets. In a nutshell, an off-duty Wilmington Police officer
observed the shots fired. Assisting officers apprehended the suspect 1.5 blocks from
the shooting, without incident. The officers searched the individual and recovered a
black and silver Smith & Wesson .40 caliber handgun from his front right jacket
pocket. Surveillance footage and ballistic evidence confirms what was observed by
1
Defendant’s date of birth is June 9, 2004.
2
Indictment, True Bill No. 11, D.I. 2.
3
This recitation is based upon oral argument and evidence presented at the reverse amenability
hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Transfer on December 13, 2021.
2
the off-duty officer where the suspect identified as Defendant is seen pointing a gun
and shooting in the direction of cars and persons. During a post-Miranda interview,
he admitted to firing the shots. Fortunately, the three victims between the ages of
11 and 14—and strangers to Defendant—were not injured. Defendant’s age as a
juvenile makes him a “person prohibited” from possessing a firearm.
On January 11, 2021, Family Court held a preliminary hearing and the case
was subsequently transferred to this Court. Defendant was indicted by the Grand
Jury on July 6, 2021. Defendant filed a Motion for Amenability Hearing on July 27,
2021. Psychological evaluations and corresponding reports on behalf of Defendant
were conducted and prepared by his experts in August and December of 2021. The
Court held a reverse amenability hearing on December 13, 2021.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The reverse amenability process is meant to identify juveniles charges as
adults who are amenable to the rehabilitative process of the Family Court.4 If the
juvenile files a motion to transfer the adult charges, this Court must hold a reverse
amenability hearing and weigh the four factors set forth in 10 Del. C. § 1011(b).5
The Court may consider evidence of: (1) “[t]he nature of the present offense and the
4
See generally 10 Del. C. §§ 1010-11; see also Hughes v. State, 653 A.2d 241, 249 (Del. 1994)
(quoting Marine v. State, 624 A.2d 1181, 1184 (Del. 1993)); Marine v. State, 607 A.2d 1185,
1209 (Del. 1992)).
5
See, e.g., State v. Harper, 2014 WL 1303012, at *5–7 (Del. Super. Mar. 31, 2014).
3
extent and nature of the defendant’s prior record, if any;”6 (2) “[t]he nature of past
treatment and rehabilitative efforts and the nature of the defendant’s response
thereto, if any;”7 (3) “[w]hether the interests of society and the defendant would be
best served by trial in the Family Court or in the Superior Court[;]” 8 and (4) any
“other factors which, in the judgment of the Court are deemed relevant.”9
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Fair Likelihood of Conviction
Before weighing the § 1011(b) factors, “this Court must preliminarily
determine whether the State has made out a prima facie case against the juvenile”10
to consider “whether there is a fair likelihood that [the defendant] will be convicted
of the crimes charged.”11 The State has made out its prima facia case as to all
charges. Defendant admits to the charged conduct of discharging a firearm
(PFDCF.) Three victims were present at the time of the shooting to establish the
Reckless Endangering counts. The firearm was concealed when he was apprehended
to establish the Carrying Concealed Deadly Weapon charges, and as a juvenile, he
cannot possess a firearm in the State of Delaware.
6
10 Del. C. § 1011(b)(1).
7
Id. § 1011(b)(2).
8
Id. § 1011(b)(3).
9
Id. § 1011(b).
10
Harper, 2014 WL 1303012, at *5 (citing Marine, 624 A.2d at 1185).
11
Id.4
Moreover, the Court cannot exercise discretion for the PFDCF charge. By
Defendant’s own admission that he fired the weapon, the State has established its
burden to have Defendant tried as an adult.12 Defendant concedes as much but he
asks the Court to consider whether the remaining charges may return to the Family
Court. For the reasons set forth, the charges must remain here.
B. Weighing § 1011(b)’s Four Factors
1. Section 1011(b) Factor One: Nature of Present Offense and the Extent
and Nature of Defendant’s Prior Record
The first § 1011(b) factor is two pronged.13 All charges against Defendant are
serious in nature and weigh against transfer. As to the second prong, his prior record,
Defendant’s prior adjudications, including violent offenses, have escalated in
nature.14 Defendant has a pending charge for Assault in a Detention Facility with
Physical Injury. This factor weighs against transfer.
12
11 Del. C. § 1447A(f) (“Every person charged under this section over the age of 16 years who,
following an evidentiary hearing where the Superior Court finds proof positive or presumption
great that the accused used, displayed, or discharged a firearm during the commission of a Title
11 or a Title 31 violent felony as set forth in § 4201 (c) of this title, shall be tried as an adult,
notwithstanding any contrary provisions or statutes governing the Family Court or any other
state law. The provisions of this section notwithstanding, the Attorney General may elect to
proceed in Family Court.”).
13
See 10 Del. C. § 1011(b)(1).
14
On July 1, 2019, Defendant was adjudicated delinquent of Robbery Second and Receiving
Stolen Property. On December 16, 2019, Defendant was adjudicated delinquent for Offensive
Touching and Disorderly Conduct.
5
2. Section 1011(b) Factor Two: Nature of Past Treatment and
Defendant’s Response
For two years, from 2017 to 2019, Defendant responded well to treatment.
For the last two, he has not. While at Snowden Cottage following his 2019
adjudication of delinquency, Defendant experienced multiple behavioral issues.
After a group altercation, Defendant was removed from Snowden Cottage and
transferred to New Castle County Detention Center (NCCDC) where he exhibited
violent and threatening conduct. During this detention, he again experienced
multiple behavioral issues at NCCDC and was eventually transferred to Stevenson
House Detention Center (Stevenson). At Stevenson, Defendant was again involved
in several altercations, one resulted in pending criminal charges. For these reasons,
Ronald Thomson, Jr., a Senior Family Services Specialist, Juvenile Probation
Officer testified for YRS that Defendant is non-amenable to its services.
On the other hand, finding Defendant amenable, the Court considered the
testimony of Dr. Laura Cooney-Koss, Psy. D. and the reports of both Drs. Cooney-
Koss15 and Nicole Kelly Walker, Psy. D.16 Both opined that Defendant is amenable
to the services of the Family Court. Dr. Cooney-Koss testified that Defendant’s
“struggles are rather pervasive”17 due to low verbal ability, neurological immaturity,
15
See Psychological Evaluation by Laura Cooney-Koss, Psy.D. (Dec. 1, 2021).
16
See Psychological Evaluation by Nicole Kelly Walker, Psy.D. (Aug. 20, 2021).
17
Psychological Evaluation by Laura Cooney-Koss, Psy.D., at 5 (Dec. 1, 2021).
6
and various psychiatric symptoms.18 She believes Defendant requires both
psychiatric and therapeutic intervention which can best be provided by the Family
Court.19
Both Officer Thompson and Dr. Cooney-Koss testified that perhaps lack of
medication and his family’s inability/refusal to obtain necessary services for
Defendant since age 12 has likely contributed to his behavior. And perhaps this
explains his multiple instances of aggressive behavior. Giving him the benefit of the
doubt, this Court finds this factor weighs in favor of transfer where it has been
demonstrated that he was successful while on community supervision and when his
medication regimen changed during his detention, he has responded favorably to
treatment. However, this is not sufficient to transfer the case to Family Court.
3. Section 1011(b) Factor Three: Interest of Society and Defendant
The Court accepts the opinion of Dr. Cooney-Koss that “[Defendant’s] needs
and the interests of society would be best served by transferring his case to the
Family Court System.”20 Defendant has demonstrated improvement with a change
of medications.
The Court was most impressed that despite Defendant’s involvement with all
three divisions from the Department of Services for Children, Youth & Their
18
Id. at 4–5.
19
Id. at 5.
20
Id. at 6.
7
Families, at age 17.5, he has earned his high school degree. Given the adverse
childhood events including educational obstacles and domestic violence, he
demonstrates the capacity to learn.
Given his diagnoses, and the unrebutted opinions of two psychological
evaluators, Defendant could benefit from approximately 1.5 years of programming
through a Level V juvenile rehabilitation facility such as the Ferris School. He could
further be provided with community supervision to age 21. With programing,
perhaps there would be time in Family Court. However, given his age and the
firearm charge, the last factor prevents the charges from transferring back to Family
Court.
4. Section 1011(b)’s Catchall Provision: Any Factors Deemed Relevant
Here, the Court does the math. Defendant admitted that he discharged the
firearm. He was over 16 years when he did so. Therefore, the law mandates he be
tried as an adult offender for PFDCF. Currently 17.5 years old, if convicted on the
firearm charge, Defendant faces the minimum mandatory incarceration period of 3
years, beyond his 19th birthday. Thus, he “will not be spared adult court proceedings
in any event, regardless of the merit of the companion charges and the prospect for
rehabilitation.”21
21
State v. Anderson, 697 A.2d 379, 384 (Del. 1997).
8
Accordingly, basic principles of joinder under Superior Court Criminal Rule
8 lead this Court to conclude that the Reckless Endangering charges are inextricably
intertwined with his firearm charge.22 It is illogical to ask a jury to hear the firearm
charge without considering the accompanying felonies. And judicial economy leads
to the conclusion that all charges should remain in one court. 23
V. CONCLUSION
Where this Court is bound under 11 Del. C. § 1447A(f) to retain jurisdiction
over the firearm charge, under § 1011(b), the factors weigh against transfer. For the
reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Charges to Family Court must
be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Vivian L. Medinilla
Judge Vivian L. Medinilla
oc: Prothonotary
22
See SUPER. CT. CRIM. R. 8(a) (permitting the joining of offenses when “connected together or
constituting parts of a common scheme or plan.”).
23
See Ashley v. State, 85 A.3d 81, 85 (Del. 2014) (citing Mayer v. State, 320 A.2d 713, 717 (Del.
1974).
9