Jonathan Rolfe v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 603
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CR-24-251

Opinion Delivered December 11, 2024

JONATHAN ROLFE APPEAL FROM THE ST. FRANCIS
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 62CR-23-51]
V.
HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER W.
MORLEDGE, JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge

Appellant Jonathan Rolfe was charged as an adult with three counts of capital murder

and one count of felony theft of property. He brings this interlocutory appeal from the St.

Francis County Circuit Court’s denial of a motion to transfer his case to the juvenile division

of circuit court. He argues that the trial court’s order denying the transfer motion is deficient

with respect to its factual findings and, alternatively, that the trial court erred in denying his

motion. We remand with instructions for the trial court to provide the required findings.

I. Motion to Transfer to Juvenile Division

Under Arkansas law, a prosecuting attorney has discretion to charge a juvenile sixteen

years of age or older in the criminal division of the circuit court if the juvenile has engaged

in conduct that, if committed by an adult, would be a felony. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-
318(c)(1) (Repl. 2020). On the motion of the court or any party, the court in which the

criminal charges have been filed shall conduct a hearing to determine whether to transfer

the case to another division of the circuit court having jurisdiction. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-

318(e). The moving party bears the burden of proving that the case should be transferred to

the juvenile division of the circuit court. Donson v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 459, 588 S.W.3d

84. The circuit court shall order the case transferred to another division of the circuit court

only upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the case should be transferred.

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318(h)(2). We will not reverse a circuit court’s determination whether

to transfer a case unless the decision is clearly erroneous. Kiser v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 198,

487 S.W.3d 374.

At the transfer hearing, the court shall consider all of the following factors:

(1) The seriousness of the alleged offense and whether the protection of society
requires prosecution in the criminal division of circuit court;

(2) Whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent,
premeditated, or willful manner;

(3) Whether the offense was against a person or property, with greater weight
being given to offenses against persons, especially if personal injury resulted;

(4) The culpability of the juvenile, including the level of planning and
participation in the alleged offense;

(5) The previous history of the juvenile, including whether the juvenile had been
adjudicated a juvenile offender and, if so, whether the offenses were against persons
or property, and any other previous history of antisocial behavior or patterns of
physical violence;

2
(6) The sophistication or maturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration
of the juvenile’s home, environment, emotional attitude, pattern of living, or desire
to be treated as an adult;

(7) Whether there are facilities or programs available to the judge of the juvenile
division of circuit court that are likely to rehabilitate the juvenile before the
expiration of the juvenile’s twenty-first birthday;

(8) Whether the juvenile acted alone or was part of a group in the commission of
the alleged offense;

(9) Written reports and other materials relating to the juvenile’s mental, physical,
educational, and social history; and

(10) Any other factors deemed relevant by the judge.

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318(g). Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-318(h)(1), a circuit court

shall make written findings on all of the factors set forth above; however, there is no

requirement that proof be introduced against the juvenile on each factor, and the circuit

court is not obligated to give equal weight to each of these factors in determining whether a

case should be transferred. Kiser, supra.

After the State charged Rolfe as an adult with capital murder and theft, Rolfe moved

to transfer his case to the juvenile division of circuit court. At the transfer hearing, Rolfe

introduced testimony from ten witnesses, including Brooke Digby, the juvenile ombudsman

for the Arkansas Public Defender Commission; Dr. Caren Moore, a psychologist who

interviewed and evaluated him; Sandra Heard, his ninth-grade teacher; Kevin Mosley, his

former baseball coach; Natasha Granger, his former music teacher; Michael Holt, a juvenile

officer at the Craighead County Juvenile Detention Center; Aaliyah Lamb, his then sixteen-

3
year-old girlfriend; Latoya Houston, Lamb’s mother; Bobbie Arnett, his paternal

grandmother; and Sadie Blackwell, a juvenile intake officer for St. Francis County.

The State presented the testimony of Dale Arnold, a criminal investigator with the

St. Francis County Sheriff’s Office, who collected evidence at the scene, interviewed

witnesses, and later developed Rolfe as a suspect. Also, the State introduced a video of the

crime scene.

In denying Rolfe’s motion, the trial court made the following findings:

1. The Defendant is charged with three counts of Capital Murder and one count of
Theft.

2. The allegations against the Defendant are as follows: The Defendant, acting solely,
did, on or about November 28, 2022, allegedly shoot his mother, Shalonda
Barton, and her boyfriend, Jaterrance Wright, in the bed of the mother’s home.
The Defendant did further allegedly shoot and kill minor victim [MC1] in her
bedroom at the mother’s home. The crime scene investigation revealed that no
items of value were taken and that several 9mm shell casings were recovered,
including one in the purse belonging to Shalonda Barton. At approximately 2:20
a.m. the Defendant appeared at the home of his alleged girlfriend and her mother
heard tapping on the window and contacted the Forrest City Police Department,
believing there was a prowler at her home. The “prowler” was discovered to be
Jonathan Rolfe. The evidence further revealed that the Defendant’s biological
sister, [MC2], had been taken from the Defendant’s mother’s home by the
Defendant and she was delivered to her paternal grandmother, Bobbie Arnett,
who testified at the hearing. The evidence revealed that a key fob was found to a
black Cadillac, registered to Shalonda Barton, in a police car, in which the only
detainee was the Defendant. Investigators tested the key fob found in the police
car and it operated the Cadillac belonging to Shalonda Barton. The evidence at
the hearing further revealed that items of clothing of the Defendant were sent to
the Arkansas State Crime Lab for forensic evaluation.

3. The Defendant was 17 years of age at the time that the crimes were committed.

4
4. That Dr. Caren Moore, a psychologist, who had interviewed the Defendant,
testified that he was age appropriate and that she could not render an opinion as
to whether the Defendant could be rehabilitated.

5. That two of the Defendant’s teachers testified that he was age appropriate.

6. That Sadie Blackwell, Juvenile Intake officer, testified that the Defendant had no
previous adjudications as a juvenile offender, but that he “scored high” as to his
risk level. She based this opinion on an interview and assessment with the
Defendant. She testified that the Defendant had several gang associations, based
on his self-report, and that his risk of reoffending was high based upon self-
reported emotional trauma and substance abuse by the Defendant.

7. There was further proof, primarily from the testimony of Bobbie Arnett, that the
Defendant had an unstable homelife and that he had issues with and very little
connection to his mother. She further testified that the father of the Defendant,
her son, was imprisoned in the Arkansas DOC for Murder in the Second Degree
and that she took the Defendant to visit him while incarcerated.

8. The Court finds that this case should not be transferred to Juvenile Court, and
that the Criminal Division of St. Francis County is the proper forum for the
adjudication of this case based on the seriousness of the offenses charged, the
violence employed, the personal injuries suffered by the three victims, the proof
that there is little belief that he will not reoffend, and that there is not sufficient
provision for his rehabilitation in the juvenile system.

II. Discussion

Rolfe addresses each paragraph of the trial court’s order and argues that the findings

are lacking in some respect because they do not cover every aspect of the particular factor at

issue. Rolfe further contends that the trial court did not address factors (8), (9), and (10) at

all in its order and that the case should be remanded for more specific findings.1 McClendon

1
Rolfe, citing Houselog v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 393, 690 S.W.3d 850—which he
describes as a “seismic event”—argues for the first time in his reply brief that “[t]he circuit

5
v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 115, 572 S.W.3d 443. We disagree that the trial court did not

address the eighth factor, and the tenth factor is simply a catch-all for the trial court to list

any other factors it deems relevant.2

The ninth factor that must be considered is “written reports and other materials

relating to the juvenile’s mental, physical, educational, and social history.” The State

contends that the trial court’s order made “explicit reference” to Dr. Moore’s interview with

Rolfe, which resulted in her report, and that the trial court made determinations in

paragraph four of its order that were based on “salient aspects of her testimony vis a vis the

report.” The State concludes that the trial court’s order thus “substantially complied” with

the requirement that the trial court provide a written finding on each factor.

Rolfe sat for a five-hour interview with Dr. Moore, which culminated in an extensive

seventeen-page report on her assessment of Rolfe’s “present level of social, emotional,

academic, cognitive, and attentional functioning.” While the trial court did refer to Dr.

court should not get another opportunity to cure the deficiencies of its order.” Houselog is
distinguishable in that the trial court’s findings in that case were not simply deficient—they
were wholly inconsistent with the evidence presented. In any event, an argument made for
the first time in a reply brief comes too late. Bynum v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 41, 511 S.W.3d
860. A reply brief is the place for rebuttal, not entirely new arguments for reversal, and it is
well established that the appellate court will not consider an argument made for the first
time in a reply brief. Id. Here, the State has had no opportunity to respond to Rolfe’s new
argument.
2
To the extent that the trial court failed to make a finding with respect to the tenth
factor, the statute could be satisfied by simply inserting a sentence that the trial court did not
deem any other factors relevant to its decision, given the absence of any mention of such
additional factors.

6
Moore’s interview with Rolfe, it made no mention of the report. The ninth factor specifically

calls for consideration of written reports, and Dr. Moore’s report may have been relevant to

the sixth factor as far as Rolfe’s emotional attitude. Because the trial court did not make

specific findings with respect to the ninth factor despite evidence in the record, we remand

for the trial court to make those findings. We also take this opportunity to point out that,

while the statute does not require that the findings be made in chronological order, it may

be the better practice to list the factors sequentially and make findings on each one in turn,

before moving to the next one.

Remanded with instructions.

KLAPPENBACH and BARRETT, JJ., agree.

Brent P. Gasper, Arkansas Public Defender Comm’n, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

7