Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-503 (2026)

Designation hearing

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. When a party requests an extended juvenile jurisdiction designation, the court shall hold a designation hearing within thirty (30) days if the juvenile is detained and no longer than ninety (90) days following the petition or motion requesting such designation.
2. These time limitations shall be tolled during the pendency of any competency issues.
The party requesting the extended juvenile jurisdiction designation has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that such a designation is warranted.
The court shall make written findings and consider all of the following factors in making its determination to designate a juvenile as an extended juvenile jurisdiction offender:
1. The seriousness of the alleged offense and whether the protection of society requires prosecution as an extended juvenile jurisdiction offender;
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 delinquent and, if so, whether the offenses were against persons or property and any other previous history of antisocial behavior or patterns of physical violence;
6. The sophistication and 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 court that are likely to rehabilitate the juvenile prior to the expiration of the court's jurisdiction;
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 court.
Upon finding that the juvenile shall be treated as an extended juvenile jurisdiction offender, the court shall enter its written findings and inform the juvenile of his or her right to a jury trial and shall set a date for the adjudication.
If the court denies the request for extended juvenile jurisdiction, the court shall enter its written findings and proceed with the case as a delinquency proceeding.
For purposes of appeal, a designation order is a final appealable order and shall be subject to an interlocutory appeal.

History. Acts 1999, No. 1192, § 3.

Case Notes

In General.

Defendant's argument that he should have been adjudicated pursuant to extended juvenile jurisdiction (EJJ) was without merit because there could be no EJJ designation unless the case either was already in the juvenile division or was transferred to the juvenile division. Lindsey v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 355, 498 S.W.3d 336 (2016).

Appeal.

As a juvenile's objection to the failure to have an extended juvenile jurisdiction hearing within 90 days was untimely, as the juvenile waived the right to insist on a timely hearing, and as the juvenile cited no authority as to what principle of fundamental fairness had been violated, there was no penalty for noncompliance with Ark. R. Crim. P. 28.1 under subsection (a) of this section. D.B. v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 151 (2011).

Appellate jurisdiction over an extended juvenile jurisdiction order was lacking where the juvenile had not filed a notice of appeal within 30 days of the order's entry of judgment nor had he designated the order being appealed. J.N.A. v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 502, 532 S.W.3d 582 (2017).

Burden of Proof.

Trial court did not err in denying a juvenile's request to transfer his case to the juvenile division under § 9-27-318(g) based on the seriousness of the crimes; the aggressive, willful manner of the crimes; that the offenses were against persons; and the juvenile's sophisticated evasion of capture and non-cooperation. The trial court properly used the clear and convincing burden of proof from § 9-27-318(h)(2) in deciding the juvenile's request, not the preponderance of the evidence standard applicable under subsection (b) of this section. A.I. v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 83 (2010).

EJJ Designation Upheld.

Although the juvenile had not been adjudicated delinquent previously, the circuit court did not err in finding that factor 5, under subdivision (c)(5) of this section, supported a juvenile's extended juvenile jurisdiction designation where the testimony of his teachers and family showed that he exhibited antisocial behavior as early as the first or second grade and exhibited violent and disturbing behavior at home and at school, including physical and verbal abuse. A.M. v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 357, 584 S.W.3d 253 (2019).

While there was uncontroverted evidence of environmental and custodial instability in the juvenile's young life, that evidence did not negate the circuit court's finding that he acted in a sophisticated manner in planning and executing the murder. A.M. v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 357, 584 S.W.3d 253 (2019).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: J.N.A. v. State, 532 S.W.3d 582 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

J.N.A. v. State, 532 S.W.3d 582 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-501 (a)(4) (Repl. 2015).”

J.S. v. State, 372 S.W.3d 370 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “A party desiring an extended juvenile jurisdiction designation may request such a designation and the court shall then hold a designation hearing pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 9-27-503. The party requesting the designation has the burden to prove by a preponderance -of the…”

A.M. v. State of Arkansas, 2019 Ark. App. 357 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 12× “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-503 (b) (Repl. 2015).”

J.N.A. v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 502 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-501 (a)(4) (Repl. 2015).”

Lindsey v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 355 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “) Likewise, Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-503(e) provides that “[i]f the court denies the request for [EJJ], the court shall enter its written findings and proceed with the case as a delinquency proceeding.”

Hill v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 389 S.W.3d 72 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “As a result, we held that, because there was nothing expressed in Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-503(a) about the effect of noncompliance and nothing that indicated that the time limit was jurisdictional, noncompliance with the time limits for the EJJ hearing did not…”

T.C. v. State, 364 S.W.3d 53 (Ark. 2010). · cites it 4× “with first-degree murder for the death of his sister and moved to designate him as an extended-juvenile-jurisdiction offender under Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-503. Following a fitness-to-proceed evaluation in accordance with section 9-27-502, the circuit judge found…”

Sharp v. State, 548 S.W.3d 846 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “§ 9-27-318 (e), (i), and (m) ; Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-503 (e) (Repl. 2015); see also J.”

State v. K.H., 368 S.W.3d 46 (Ark. 2010). · cites it 2× “was designated as an extended-juvenile-jurisdiction offender pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-503, and his case was transferred to the Juvenile Division of the circuit court in accordance with Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-318(i).”

N.D. v. State, 411 S.W.3d 205 (Ark. 2012). · cites it 3× “Upon a finding by the criminal court that a juvenile charged with capital |fimurder who is age fourteen through seventeen should be transferred to juvenile court, the criminal court may order that the offender have an EJJ designation.”

Richardson v. State, 244 S.W.3d 736 (Ark. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “1 The factors to be considered in an extended juvenile jurisdiction designation hearing differ only slightly; they are set out at Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-503 (c) (Repl. 2002).”

Holmes v. State, 569 S.W.3d 895 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 9-27-318 (e), (i), and (m) ; Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-503 (e) ; see also J.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-503(a) — 4 cases

Hill v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 389 S.W.3d 72 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012). “As a result, we held that, because there was nothing expressed in Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-503(a) about the effect of noncompliance and nothing that indicated that the time limit was jurisdictional, noncompliance with the time limits for the EJJ hearing did not…”

J.N.A. v. State, 532 S.W.3d 582 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). “See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-501 (a)(4) (Repl. 2015).”

J.N.A. v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 502 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). “See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-501 (a)(4) (Repl. 2015).”

J.N.A. v. State, 532 S.W.3d 582 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017).

— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-503(b) — 2 cases

J.S. v. State, 372 S.W.3d 370 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009). “A party desiring an extended juvenile jurisdiction designation may request such a designation and the court shall then hold a designation hearing pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 9-27-503. The party requesting the designation has the burden to prove by a preponderance -of the…”

Nelson v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 148 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016).

— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-503(d) — 1 case

N.D. v. State, 411 S.W.3d 205 (Ark. 2012). “Upon a finding by the criminal court that a juvenile charged with capital |fimurder who is age fourteen through seventeen should be transferred to juvenile court, the criminal court may order that the offender have an EJJ designation.”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-503(e) — 3 cases

Lindsey v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 355 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). “) Likewise, Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-503(e) provides that “[i]f the court denies the request for [EJJ], the court shall enter its written findings and proceed with the case as a delinquency proceeding.”

Derrick Heard v. State of Arkansas, 2019 Ark. App. 586 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019).

Hardin v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 178 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016).

— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-503(e)(2) — 1 case

Ayden Merrell v. State of Arkansas, 2026 Ark. 15 (Ark. 2026).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.