TOM GLAZE, Justice.
On March 20, 1992, the state filed a two-count felony information in Pulaski County Circuit Court against Abraham Hatton, who was sixteen years old. Hatton was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use. The information reflected that Hatton was arrested on January 30, 1992.
On January 20, 1993, Hatton filed a motion to transfer his felony charges to the Juvenile Division of Pulaski County Chancery Court, and the state opposed the motion. On January 26, 1993, the circuit court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Hatton's transfer motion and ordered Hatton's case transferred, noting Hatton had no record of violence. In a February 10, 1993 memorandum, the juvenile-division judge declined to accept Hatton's case and in her March 3, 1993 order, filed and entered the same date, the juvenile judge stated the following reasons for refusing jurisdiction:
No appeal was taken from the foregoing order. Instead, the state filed a motion to supplement the record in the circuit court with a copy of the juvenile judge's March 3 order, and on March 23, 1993, the circuit court granted the motion, stating the juvenile-division chancery judge's "order is in direct conflict with and therefore affects the orders of this court and said order is necessary to make this court's record complete." The state filed a notice of appeal from the circuit court's March 23 order, and argues in this appeal that the juvenile-division judge lacked jurisdiction to refuse to accept Hatton's case after the circuit court transferred the case to juvenile court.
Although the juvenile court may well have been without jurisdiction to have refused the circuit court's transfer of Hatton's case, the state failed to file a notice of appeal from the juvenile court's proceeding and March 3 order. That order effectively denied transfer of Hatton's case, and under Ark. Code Ann. 9-27-318(h) (Repl. 1993), the state should have appealed from the March 3 order if it desired to challenge the juvenile judge's decision. This court simply has no jurisdiction to decide the efficacy of the juvenile court's ruling in this appeal from the circuit court proceeding. Therefore the state's appeal must be dismissed.
In conclusion, we would add that, while the dismissal of this appeal leaves Hatton's case in circuit court, the juvenile judge's finding in her March 3 order that the speedy-trial time had run is in no way binding on the circuit court. In refusing transfer and jurisdiction of Hatton's case, the juvenile judge obviously precluded herself from hearing and deciding the speedy-trial issue.
HOLT, C.J., concurs; HAYES and BROWN, JJ., dissent.
TOM GLAZE, Justice.
JACK HOLT, JR., Chief Justice, concurring.
I heartily concur with the majority that the State's appeal must be dismissed. The majority predicate their action on the premise that this court does not have jurisdiction to decide the efficacy of the juvenile court's ruling in this appeal from the circuit court proceeding, whereas I would dismiss on the basis that the circuit court had lost its jurisdiction over Hatton when it transferred his case to juvenile court. This court has a duty to raise the question of subject-matter jurisdiction on its own motion. See State v. Edwards, 310 Ark. 516, 838 S.W.2d 356 (1992).
To support my position, an exploration of the factual background is necessary. On March 20, 1992, the State filed a two-count felony information against the appellee, Abraham Hatton, charging him with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use. On the date of his alleged offenses, January 20, 1992, Hatton was sixteen years old. The information recited that he had been arrested on January 30, 1992.
A year later, on January 20, 1993, Hatton filed a motion in Pulaski County Circuit Court to transfer the two pending criminal charges to the Juvenile Division of Pulaski County Chancery Court. This motion was made under the authority of Ark. Code Ann. 9-27-318(d) (Supp. 1993), which provides that
Upon the motion of the court or of any party, the judge of the court in which a delinquency petition or criminal charges have been filed shall conduct a hearing to determine whether to retain jurisdiction or to transfer the case to another court having jurisdiction.
The State filed a response opposing the motion on January 25, 1993.
Pursuant to the statutory requirement, an evidentiary hearing on the motion to transfer was held in the Pulaski County Circuit Court on January 26, 1993. After hearing witness testimony and argument for counsel, the circuit court, noting that Hatton had no record of violence, ordered the transfer of the case to the Juvenile Division of the Pulaski County Chancery Court.
In a memorandum sent to the First Division Chancery Judge on February 10, 1993, the juvenile division of the chancery court declined to accept the transfer of Hatton's case.
Thereafter the Pulaski County Circuit Court and the Juvenile Court made certain orders and entries on its docket sheet which are of no further consequence.
In its single point for reversal, the State frames the issue on appeal — whether the juvenile court lacked statutory authority to refuse to accept jurisdiction of Hatton's case upon transfer from the circuit court — in the larger context of the limitations on judicial power imposed by the legislature through the enactment of procedural statutes. The State's argument is primarily focused on the language of the controlling statute itself.
Out of these arguments, the real question surfaces: that is, did the circuit court, when it conducted a hearing to determine whether to retain jurisdiction or to transfer this case to juvenile court under Ark. Code 9-27-318(d) and decided upon the latter course, lose jurisdiction over the case for all purposes? If, as I believe, the answer is that the circuit court has in fact lost jurisdiction, then the appeal of its present orders is of no moment, and I would hold accordingly. Actions taken by a court without jurisdiction are null and void. State v. J.B., 309 Ark. 70, 827 S.W.2d 144 (1992).
The relevant statutory section, Ark. Code Ann. 9-27-318(d), provides for "the judge of the court in which a delinquency petition or criminal charges have been filed" to "conduct a hearing to determine whether to retain jurisdiction or to transfer the case to another court having jurisdiction." Nowhere does this statute authorize "another court having jurisdiction" to refuse to accept the transfer. Indeed, the rest of the statute is silent on the question of the power of the court, whether circuit or chancery, to do anything other than accept the transferred case.
So, too, are our opinions on juvenile transfer cases, all of which presuppose that the fundamental issue is whether a court has properly ordered or denied a transfer, not whether "another court having jurisdiction" has the option to decline the transfer. See, e.g., Slay v. State, 309 Ark. 507, 832 S.W.2d 217 (1992); Vickers v. State, 307 Ark. 298, 819 S.W.2d 13 (1991); Walker v. State, 304 Ark. 393, 803 S.W.2d 502 (1991).
In another context, we have declared that 9-27-318 "clearly delegates" the responsibility for determining whether the circuit court or the juvenile division of chancery court is the more appropriate forum "to the court in which the charges were brought." Pennington v. State, 305 Ark. 312, 315, 807 S.W.2d 660, 662 (1991). The Pennington case dealt with a an instance in which the circuit court ignored its own findings and deferred solely to the prosecutor's judgment in selecting a forum for trial. Obviously, if the legislature has vested the decision-making power regarding transfers in the particular court before which the juvenile first appears, the other court cannot assume this statutorily conferred authority, any more than the prosecutor could in Pennington. Had the circuit court here accepted the case after the juvenile division of chancery court refused it, there would have been, as in Pennington v. State, an abuse of discretion.
Simply put, the juvenile division of chancery court had no legal authority to decline to accept the appellee's case. In so doing, it exceeded its jurisdiction, see State v. Garrison, 272 Ark. 470, 615 S.W.2d 371 (1981), and its order reflecting that excess is erroneous on its face. Juvenile H. v. Crabtree, 310 Ark. 208, 833 S.W.2d 208 (1992). As noted above, actions taken by a court without jurisdiction are null and void. State v. J.B., supra.
Three cases from two other states have directly addressed this issue: In re Glenn S., 445 A.2d 1029 (Md. 1982); Crosby v. State, 523 A.2d 1042 (Md.App. 1987); Commonwealth v. Pitt, 385 A.2d 574 (Penn. Super. Ct. 1978). Each involved a court system in which jurisdiction regarding criminal charges filed against juveniles was divided between a criminal trial court and a juvenile court. In each case, one of the two courts, acting under the authority of a state statute, ordered the matter in question to be transferred to the other court, and the second court, in each instance, returned the matter to the original court.
In each of the three cases, the Maryland and Pennsylvania appellate courts held that the second, or receiving, court lacked statutory authority, and hence jurisdiction, to make a "reverse" transfer. In Crosby v. State, supra, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals made the following pertinent observations:
The Legislature has concluded that with respect to
juveniles who allegedly commit certain offenses, 15-year-olds and 16-year-olds are not to be treated identically. In the case of a 15-year-old youth accused of committing armed robbery, the General Assembly has determined that the juvenile system is in the first instance the most appropriate place to adjudicate the matter. This determination may be challenged by the State at a waiver hearing. With respect to a 16-year-old youth accused of committing the same crime, the Legislature has concluded that the adult criminal court is the appropriate place to handle the matter, subject to a contrary determination by the circuit court that a reverse waiver is in the best interests of the juvenile and society. . . .
In creating the current statutory framework, the Legislature intended that a single waiver determination was to be made. As the statutes are designed, the juvenile is afforded one waiver hearing at which time the court with original jurisdiction is empowered to decide whether the criminal court or the juvenile system is the best forum to handle his or her situation. This statutory scheme makes sense from the point of view of judicial economy and expediency of juvenile matters.
To read the statutes otherwise and permit multiple waivers, waiver between courts could unproductively clog dockets and create a sense of uncertainty of responsibility within the judicial system. Additionally, the ultimate disposition of juvenile cases, which should be handled expeditiously, would be unnecessarily delayed by the addition of an extra waiver hearing.
523 A.2d at 1046.
In my view, for the reasons enumerated above, and in order to prevent jurisdictional confusion and to promote judicial efficiency, Ark. Code Ann. 9-27-318 should be strictly construed to vest the sole authority to transfer a juvenile case, after the statutorily required hearing, in the first court in which a delinquency petition or criminal charge has been lodged. That decision must be final and not subject to a second opinion by the receiving court.
Likewise, once the first court effects a transfer, as the circuit court did here, it divests itself of jurisdiction. I would therefore hold that there is no valid order from which the State could have brought this appeal.