are required to expose a child to the possibility of adult sentencing: (1) the child’s age at the time of the offense and (2) the jury’s verdict or a plea of guilty to a specifically enumerated felony or to any felony, provided it is in fact the child’s fourth felony in three years. Under Section 32A-2-20(D), if the court invokes an adult sentence, the sentence may be “less than, but shall not exceed, the mandatory adult sentence.” Therefore, at the time the child pleads or is adjudicated guilty of an offense, the range of possible sentences is fixed. In this case, the finding of non-amenability and ineligibility for commitment did not expose Defendant to a first degree sentence for a second degree crime as was the case in Apprendi We note that the plea agreement signed by 2, ¶ 9 (<HOLDING>). {36} Finally, when compared with the laws of
recognizing that the question of whether the interest of justice is served by the transfer of a juvenile for adult prosecution is a decision within the broad discretion of the district court holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion holding that statute allowing for transfer of juvenile to adult criminal court does not implicate apprendi because the judges transfer determination does not subject the juvenile to enhanced punishment it subjects the juvenile to the adult criminal justice system holding a trial courts decision involving withdrawal or discharge of counsel is subject to review for abuse of discretion holding that decision to sentence juvenile as an adult subject to abuse of discretion review