With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 956 N.E.2d at 702-04. ¶18 Given the Supreme Court’s recent elucidation regarding the scope of Apprendi — and the persuasive reasoning of other state courts in upholding their own juvenile jurisdiction statutes — we conclude that our reasoning in prior opinions rejecting the arguments presented herein is sound. The trial court’s declination decision is a jurisdictional determination, intended only to locate the appropriate forum for a defendant’s trial. It does not impose upon the defendant any sentence at all, much less one greater than the prescribed statutory maximum. ¶19 Although, here, declination was necessary for Childress to be subject to the greater punishments available in adult criminal court, it was not sufficient; in order for Childress to be subject to any p th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>); State v. Rodriguez, 205 Ariz. 392, 401, 71

A: holding that the states transfer statute did not violate the apprendi rule because the transfer hearing determines not the minors guilt but the forum in which his guilt may be adjudicated
B: holding that because the circuit court did not have subjectmatter jurisdiction over the unlawfuldetainer action the district courts unauthorized transfer of the action could not transfer jurisdiction over that action to the circuit court
C: holding that transfer statutes are not analogous to statutes increasing the potential penalties in adult criminal cases as a transfer statute does not per se increase punishment it merely establishes a basis for district court jurisdiction of prosecutions to which it applies  quoting united states v david h 29 f3d 489 491 9th cir 1994
D: 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
C.