State v. D. H. , 2015 Ohio 3259 ( 2015 )

[Cite as State v. D. H., 2015-Ohio-3259.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
: Appellate Case No. 26383
Plaintiff-Appellee :
: Trial Court Case No. 2014-CR-2123
v. :
: (Criminal Appeal from
D. H. : Common Pleas Court)
:
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 14th day of August, 2015.
...........
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by CARLEY J. INGRAM, Atty. Reg. No. 0020084, Montgomery
County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building,
P.O. Box 972, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
BROCK A. SCHOENLEIN, Atty. Reg. No. 0084707, 371 West First Street, Dayton, Ohio
45402
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
FAIN, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant D. H. appeals from his conviction and sentence on two
-2-
counts of Robbery, felonies of the second degree, after his transfer from juvenile court
based on the juvenile court’s finding that he was not amenable to rehabilitation in the
juvenile justice system. D. H. argues that the juvenile court erred in relinquishing
jurisdiction, rendering his conviction void.
{¶ 2} We conclude that the court failed to identify its reasoning for reaching its
finding that D. H. could not be rehabilitated in the juvenile system sufficiently to permit us
to conduct meaningful appellate review of its decision. Therefore, we reverse the
judg-ment of the trial court and we remand the matter to the juvenile court for
reconsideration of its decision to relinquish jurisdiction.
I. D. H.’s Participation in a “Knock-Out” Game Leads to a Robbery Conviction
{¶ 3} In the spring of 2014, when D. H. was 17 years old, he was involved in two
incidents that led him to be charged with delinquency in juvenile court. At the initial
juvenile court hearing, D. H. did not contest the existence of facts sufficient to constitute
probable cause that he had committed two robbery offenses that would be second degree
felonies if committed by an adult. The State alleged that both incidents were a version of
the “knock-out” game that had recently been sensationalized on social media. A video of
the first incident was recorded by cell phone showing D. H. attack the victim from behind,
with no warning and no provocation. When the victim attempted to run away, D. H.
pursued him and struck him again, demanding his money and cell phone, and took all the
money the victim had, a total of $3.00. Less than one month later, D. H. engaged in
another attack upon a different victim, knocking him to the ground, kicking him, and
stealing his cell phone and bus pass. The record does not support any finding that either
-3-
victim needed medical attention or incurred medical expenses. D. H. admitted to both
incidents, but showed no remorse or concern for the victims, and did not believe his
actions were serious enough to result in incarceration. Prior to these two incidents, D. H.
had not been adjudicated a delinquent, or served any time in a juvenile detention facility.
It is not disputed that in 2013, D. H. had an “unofficial” charge of Theft, as a misdemeanor,
which was handled informally, without resulting in any juvenile delinquency record.
{¶ 4} The juvenile court conducted an amenability hearing to determine whether
D. H. should be bound over to adult court. Prior to the hearing, the juvenile court ordered
a “full investigation” and referred D. H. to the court psychologist for an evaluation. At the
hearing, the only witness who testified was Erin Dooley, the Principal of Stivers School for
the Arts, a high school within the Dayton Public Schools. Principal Dooley confirmed that
D. H. had been expelled from school, as a freshman, after more than 40 incidents of
skipping class and leaving the building during school hours. After multiple suspensions,
alternative disciplinary measures, and referrals for specialized intervention, nothing
improved his poor academic performance.
{¶ 5} The parties stipulated to the report filed by the court psychologist, which
indicated she had interviewed D. H. and reviewed numerous other reports and records.1
None of the supplemental reports reviewed by the court psychologist were made part of
the record, and the juvenile court did not specifically address or summarize the reports at
the hearing, or in the final order and entry relinquishing jurisdiction and transferring D. H.
to be prosecuted as an adult. In the final entry, the juvenile court stated that “the Court
finds, having carefully considered the testimony and evidence presented, and having
1
To protect the privacy of the juvenile’s mental health evaluation, we will not quote or
summarize the report, although we did review its contents as part of this appeal.
-4-
considered all of the factors which could weigh in favor of transfer” the following:
1. The victim did suffer physical or psychological harm;
2. The victim’s physical or psychological vulnerability or age did
exacerbate the physical or psychological harm;
3. The child’s relationship with the victim did not facilitate the acts charged;
4. The child did not allegedly commit the acts charged as part of a gang or
other organized criminal activity;
5. The child did not have a firearm on or about his person or under his
control at the time of the act charged;
6. At the time of the act charged, the child was not awaiting adjudication or
disposition as a delinquent child, was not under a community control
sanction, and was not on parole for a prior delinquency adjudication or
conviction;
7. Results of previous juvenile sanctions and programs indicate that
rehabilitation is not likely to occur in the juvenile system;
8. The child is emotionally, physically and psychologically mature enough
for transfer;
9. There is not sufficient time to rehabilitate the child within the juvenile
system.
{¶ 6} The final entry of the juvenile court also stated that “[h]aving considered all
of the factors which could weigh against transfer, the Court finds” the following:
1. The victim did not induce or facilitate the acts charged;
-5-
2. The child did not act under provocation in allegedly committing the acts
charged;
3. The child was the principal offender and not under the negative
influence or coercion of another person at the time of the act charged;
4. The child did cause physical harm to any person or property and should
have had reasonable cause to believe that harm would occur;
5. The child has not been adjudicated a delinquent child in the past;
6. The child is emotionally, physically and psychologically mature enough
for the transfer;
7. The child does not have a mental illness2 and is not a mentally retarded
person;
8. There is not sufficient time to rehabilitate the child within the juvenile
system, and the level of security available in the juvenile system does
not provide a reasonable assurance of public safety.
{¶ 7} More factually based findings were placed on the record at the time of the
amenability hearing. The juvenile court focused its determination whether D. H. was
amenable to care and rehabilitation within the juvenile system by looking at two issues,
and stated as follows:
And so for purposes of argument, there are two issues left to be
decided: Is there a safety-to-the-community issue to be considered, and/or
2
We note that this conclusion is contrary to the psychologist’s report which did discuss a
mental health diagnosis recognized by the American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. 2013) and the need for treatment,
which will not be quoted here to protect health care privacy.
-6-
is he amenable to treatment as a juvenile.
The first item from my review was whether or not the victim’s physical
or psychological vulnerability worsened the potential harm, and my answer
to that is yes. This young man assaulted, hurt - - and thank God he didn’t kill
anybody or break any bones, but he assaulted two homeless individuals
who were not able to care for themselves.
The second question is: Did his relationship with the victims in any
way facilitate the act charged. For today, I’m going to say the answer to that
is no, in that he had no relationship with them, but maybe the fact that they
were simply homeless was enough to decide, let’s attack them.
Did he allegedly commit the act the act charged for hire or as part of
a gang or other organized criminal activity. There seems to be no evidence
that he did this for hire. Seems to be no reason to believe that he did this as
part of a gang, although there is some concern that this was a way to get
into a gang, “or other organized criminal activity”. Is the game of taking
pictures of a victim part of an organized activity? I don’t believe so, but
again, that’s a question in my mind.
He clearly had no firearm on or about his person or under his control,
had no other weapon other than his arms and feet.
At the time this happened, to the best of the court’s knowledge, he
was not under community control or on parole for any type of charge.
Did the result of any prior juvenile sanction and program indicate that
rehabilitation will not occur in the juvenile system. There is very limited
-7-
information as to whether or not the juvenile justice system was able to help
him in the past. He wasn’t on probation, but he did — was part of this Court
system as a result of an unofficial case, and he did receive services from the
Court, granted, on a minor charge. The services he did receive from the
court system a year ago in no way stopped him from continuing to commit
crimes.
Is he emotionally, physically or psychologically mature enough to
transfer. The answer is yes. Simply having a limited education is not a basis
to say a child or person is not emotionally, physically or psychologically
mature enough for transfer. And his grades are poor. My recollection from
Dr. Fujimura’s report is that he’s at a fifth-grade level in math and
fourth-grade level in science and some other very limiting educational
abilities, but as the testimony brought out, much of that would occur, I think
with most young people who never go to school.
All of the factors I’ve described are used to lean towards finding him
nonamenable to treatment and sending him to the adult court system.
I must balance those off of factors which are detailed to weigh
against transferring him to the adult court system, and those are under (E)
subsection, and those are very clearly leaning in a certain direction.
Did the victim induce or facilitate the act charged. No. Two homeless
men did not cause themselves to be attacked.
The victim — the child acted under provocation in allegedly
committing the act charged. The answer to that is no.
-8-
Third, the child was not the principal offender, was under the
negative influence or coercion of another person at the time of the acts. In
both of these cases, it was alleged he was the principal offender, not the
follower. The fact, I believe in both cases he was the person doing the
majority of the hitting, and the other two separate individuals were the
people taking the videoes [sic].
The next question is: The child did not cause physical harm to
another person. Obviously, he did.
The child has not been adjudicated delinquent in the past. That is
correct. It was unofficial, so that is a yes.
The child is not emotionally, physically or psychologically mature
enough to transfer. I believe that he is.
[Court’s comments about the child’s health issues deleted here for
privacy].
And then, there is sufficient time to rehabilitate the child within the
juvenile justice system, and the level of security available in the juvenile
justice system provides a reasonable assurance of public safety.
The youth, I believe is 17 years, 8 months old at this point. That
would give this Court approximately three years, three or four months,
theoretically to treat the child in the juvenile justice system.
Transcript, June 9, 2014, pgs.52-56.
{¶ 8} The juvenile court went on to address “other relevant factors,” primarily
regarding the child’s family life. Neither the report nor the court entry discusses any of the
-9-
programs or structure available in the juvenile justice system that could specifically
address the rehabilitative needs of D. H. The psychologist report did not include a
recommendation of whether or not D. H. could be rehabilitated in the juvenile justice
system.
{¶ 9} After the juvenile court relinquished jurisdiction and transferred the case to
the general division of common pleas, D. H. challenged the discretionary transfer through
a motion to dismiss, and the motion was overruled. D. H. pled no contest, was found guilty
of two counts of Robbery, and was sentenced to serve a total of four years in the adult
prison system.
II. Standard of Review
{¶ 10} The Supreme Court of Ohio has consistently applied the
abuse-of-discretion standard in the review of discretionary-transfer proceedings from
juvenile court to the general division of common pleas court. In re M.P., 124 Ohio St. 3d
445, 2010-Ohio-599, 923 N.E.2d 584, ¶ 14; State v. Watson, 47 Ohio St. 3d 93, 95, 547
N.E.2d 1181 (1989); State v. Carmichael, 35 Ohio St. 2d 1, 298 N.E.2d 568 (1973),
paragraphs one and two of the syllabus; State v. Douglas, 20 Ohio St. 3d 34, 36–37, 485
N.E.2d 711 (1985); and State v. Golphin, 81 Ohio St. 3d 543, 692 N.E.2d 608 (1998). “[A]n
amenability hearing is a broad assessment of individual circumstances and is inherently
individualized and fact-based. Thus, a juvenile court's determination regarding a child's
amenability to rehabilitation in the juvenile system is reviewed by an appellate court under
an abuse-of-discretion standard.” In re M.P. at ¶14.
{¶ 11} “A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes a decision that is
unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary.” State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St. 3d 343,
-10-
2013-Ohio-966, 986 N.E.2d 971, ¶ 34. An abuse of discretion is apparent where the trial
court’s decision does not reveal a “‘sound reasoning process.’” State v. Morris, 132 Ohio
St.3d 337, 2012–Ohio–2407, 972 N.E.2d 528, ¶ 14, quoting AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River
Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp ., 50 Ohio St. 3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597
(1990). State v. Jones, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2013-CA-63, 2014-Ohio-1540, ¶ 23.
III. Discretionary Transfer Requires Factual Findings that D. H. Is Not Amenable to
Rehabilitation in the Juvenile System
{¶ 12} D. H. presents one assignment of error as follows:
THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED IN RELINQUISHING
JURISDICTION TO THE GENERAL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND
THUS THE PROCEEDINGS THERE WERE VOID AB INITIO
{¶ 13} “[I]n a discretionary-bindover proceeding, the court must determine whether
the child is amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system and whether, in
order to ensure the safety of the community, the child should be subject to adult
sanctions. R.C. 2152.12(B)(3). See also Juv.R. 30(C).” In re A.J.S., 120 Ohio St. 3d 185,
2008-Ohio-5307, 897 N.E.2d 629, ¶ 38. Juv.R. 30 permits the juvenile court to transfer
jurisdiction where the court has considered all statutory factors and determined that there
are reasonable grounds to believe that the child is not amenable to care or rehabilitation
in the juvenile penal system and where the safety of the community may require the child
to remain incarcerated beyond the child’s twenty-first birthday. Pursuant to R.C.
2152.12(D) the juvenile court must consider the following factors that weigh in favor of
transferring the case to the general division of common pleas court:
-11-
(1) The victim of the act charged suffered physical or psychological harm, or
serious economic harm, as a result of the alleged act.
(2) The physical or psychological harm suffered by the victim due to the
alleged act of the child was exacerbated because of the physical or
psychological vulnerability or the age of the victim.
(3) The child's relationship with the victim facilitated the act charged.
(4) The child allegedly committed the act charged for hire or as a part of a
gang or other organized criminal activity.
(5) The child had a firearm on or about the child's person or under the child's
control at the time of the act charged, the act charged is not a violation of
section 2923.12 of the Revised Code, and the child, during the commission
of the act charged, allegedly used or displayed the firearm, brandished the
firearm, or indicated that the child possessed a firearm.
(6) At the time of the act charged, the child was awaiting adjudication or
disposition as a delinquent child, was under a community control sanction,
or was on parole for a prior delinquent child adjudication or conviction.
(7) The results of any previous juvenile sanctions and programs indicate
that rehabilitation of the child will not occur in the juvenile system.
(8) The child is emotionally, physically, or psychologically mature enough
for the transfer.
(9) There is not sufficient time to rehabilitate the child within the juvenile
system.
-12-
{¶ 14} Pursuant to R.C. 2152.12(E), the juvenile court must consider the following
factors that weigh against transferring the case to the general division of common pleas
court:
(1) The victim induced or facilitated the act charged.
(2) The child acted under provocation in allegedly committing the act
charged.
(3) The child was not the principal actor in the act charged, or, at the time of
the act charged, the child was under the negative influence or coercion of
another person.
(4) The child did not cause physical harm to any person or property, or have
reasonable cause to believe that harm of that nature would occur, in
allegedly committing the act charged.
(5) The child previously has not been adjudicated a delinquent child.
(6) The child is not emotionally, physically, or psychologically mature
enough for the transfer.
(7) The child has a mental illness or is a mentally retarded person.
(8) There is sufficient time to rehabilitate the child within the juvenile system
and the level of security available in the juvenile system provides a
reasonable assurance of public safety.
{¶ 15} When considering all statutory factors, the juvenile court must specifically
identify which factors are applicable to its decision, and how such factors weighed in its
decision to transfer or retain the case. The statute, R.C. 2152.12(B)(3), mandates this
process as follows: “the court shall consider whether the applicable factors under division
-13-
(D) of this section indicating that the case should be transferred outweigh the applicable
factors under division (E) of this section indicating that the case should not be transferred.
The record shall indicate the specific factors that were applicable and that the court
weighed.” To assist in making this determination, the statute requires the juvenile court
to “order an investigation into the child’s social history, education, family situation and any
other factor bearing on whether the child is amenable to juvenile rehabilitation, including a
mental examination of the child * * *.” R.C. 2152.12 (C).
{¶ 16} In State v. D.W., 133 Ohio St. 3d 434, 2012-Ohio-4544, 978 N.E.2d 894, the
Supreme Court of Ohio reiterated the principles set forth in Kent v. United States, 383
U.S. 541, 86 S. Ct. 1045, 16 L. Ed. 2d 84 (1966), identifying that the objectives of juvenile
court “are to provide measures of guidance and rehabilitation for the child and protection
for society, not to fix criminal responsibility, guilt and punishment.” Id. at ¶7, quoting Kent
at 554. It was further acknowledged that “[t]he United States Supreme Court held that ‘as
a condition to a valid waiver order, [the juvenile] was entitled to a hearing, including
access by his counsel to the social records and probation or similar reports which
presumably are considered by the court, and to a statement of reasons for the Juvenile
Court's decision’ before being transferred to the adult court for criminal prosecution.” Id. at
¶14, citing Kent at 557. The Supreme Court of Ohio further observed that, “[a] critical
stage of the juvenile proceedings, the [amenability] hearing affects whether the juvenile
faces a delinquency adjudication, or adult criminal sanctions and the label ‘felon.’
(Citation omitted) Given the nature and consequences of the amenability hearing,
juvenile court judges are entrusted with significant authority when conducting the
hearings.” State v. D.W., at ¶ 12.
-14-
{¶ 17} To conduct a meaningful review of a juvenile court’s decision to transfer a
case to the general division of common pleas court, we must be able to determine that the
court has considered all the applicable statutory factors, based on findings of fact
identifying the individualized facts related to the child that weigh for and against transfer.
The juvenile court’s entry under review contains insufficient factual findings to identify
how the court reached its conclusion that D. H. could not be rehabilitated in the juvenile
system. The entry does not identify which of the reports and records reviewed by the
psychologist were also reviewed and considered by the court. The transcript reveals that
no exhibits or documentary evidence were admitted in evidence at the amenability
hearing, although the parties stipulated to the content of the psychologist report. The
court does not identify or discuss what programs are, or are not, available in the juvenile
system to satisfy the child’s health needs, as identified in the psychologist report.
Additionally, the court does not make any specific findings about the child’s educational
deficiencies, and does not identify what programs are, or are not, available in the juvenile
system to meet D. H.’s educational needs. The record reveals that D. H.’s age at the
time of the amenability hearing would have given him more than 3 years for rehabilitation
in the juvenile system, and yet the juvenile court’s findings contain no discussion of what
rehabilitation goals can, or cannot, be accomplished in the juvenile system in a 3-year
period, or what programs are, or are not, available in the juvenile system to accomplish
these goals. We note that if the juvenile court had denied the motion to transfer D. H.,
upon a finding of delinquency, the court could have imposed a number of different
juvenile dispositions, described in Chapter 2152 of the Revised Code, ranging from
intensive probation to secure confinement for serious youthful offenders. The juvenile
-15-
court’s entry relinquishing jurisdiction did not discuss why none of these options would
suffice to rehabilitate D. H. in the juvenile system, especially in light of the fact that he had
no prior delinquency adjudications, to support a conclusion that “rehabilitation of the child
will not occur in the juvenile system,” as directed by R.C. 2152.12 (D).
{¶ 18} We conclude that the trial court has not provided a sufficient explanation
for its decision to permit us to perform meaningful appellate review of its decision under
an abuse-of-discretion standard. “The lynchpin of abuse-of-discretion review is the
determination whether the trial court's decision is reasonable.” State v. Chase, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 26238, 2015-Ohio-545, ¶17, citing AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River
Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St. 3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597
(1990). Unless the reason or reasons for the trial court's decision are apparent from the
face of the record, it is not possible to determine if the decision is reasonable without a
more detailed explanation of the reason or reasons for that decision. In Delong v. Delong,
2d Dist. Clark No. 94-CA-0056, 1995 WL 118162 (March 15, 1995), we reversed a trial
court's award of spousal support, concluding, “[w]here the trial court fails to explain why or
how it came to its decision, and that is not apparent from the record, an appellate court
cannot resolve an abuse of discretion argument. Then, the appellate court may remand
the matter to the trial court to indicate the basis for its [decision] in detail sufficient to
permit the appellate court to resolve the issues before it.” Id., citing Kaechele v. Kaechele,
35 Ohio St. 3d 93, 518 N.E.2d 1197 (1988). “Absent supportive findings, we cannot
determine the abuse of discretion claimed, and an effort on our part to do so would require
an almost de novo review of the issues presented.” Arnett v. Arnett, 2d Dist. Montgomery
No. 20332, 2004-Ohio-5274, ¶ 17. See also State v. Chase, 2d Dist. Montgomery No.
-16-
26238, 2015-Ohio-545, ¶¶ 15-18.
{¶ 19} Accordingly, D. H.’s single assignment of error is sustained, and this cause
is remanded to the juvenile court for re-consideration of its decision to relinquish
jurisdiction, and to provide a more thorough explanation as to why D. H. can, or cannot,
be rehabilitated in the juvenile system, with sufficient findings of fact and reasoning to
permit us to review that decision under an abuse-of-discretion standard of appellate
review, should either party choose to appeal.
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 20} D. H.’s sole assignment of error having been sustained, the judgment of the
trial court is Reversed. The trial court shall enter an order dismissing the indictment and
causing D. H. to be transferred forthwith back to the Montgomery County Juvenile
Detention Facility on the delinquency complaint. This cause is Remanded to the Juvenile
Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
.............
DONOVAN, J., concurs.
WELBAUM, J., dissenting:
{¶ 21} I very respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the juvenile
court failed to sufficiently identify its reasoning for deciding that D. H. could not be
rehabilitated in the juvenile system. To the contrary, the juvenile court conducted a
thorough analysis, and the court’s decision is sufficiently supported by the evidence in the
record.
-17-
{¶ 22} Notably, “a juvenile court has wide latitude in deciding whether to retain or
to relinquish jurisdiction of a juvenile accused of a criminal offense. State v. Carmichael,
35 Ohio St. 2d 1, 298 N.E.2d 568 (1973), first paragraph of syllabus. After all, the juvenile
court judge is personally familiar with both the juvenile system and the individual juvenile,
and is therefore in a superior position to make a determination whether the juvenile is
amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system.” State v. Drane, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 23862, 2012-Ohio-1978, ¶ 34 (Fain, J., dissenting).
{¶ 23} “To determine whether the child can be rehabilitated and whether adult
sanctions are necessary for the safety of the community, the court weighs the competing
factors set forth in R.C. 2152.12(D) and (E) and indicates the factors weighed in the
record.” State v. Terrell, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-04-1131, 2005-Ohio-4871, ¶ 7, citing R.C.
2152.12(B). “The statutory scheme does not dictate how much weight must be afforded
to any specific factor and, instead, rests the ultimate decision in the discretion of the
juvenile court.” State v. Morgan, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-620, 2014-Ohio-5661,
¶ 37.
{¶ 24} “As long as the court considers the appropriate statutory factors and there is
some rational basis in the record to support the court's findings when applying those
factors, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in deciding whether
to transfer jurisdiction.” State v. West, 167 Ohio App. 3d 598, 2006-Ohio-3518, 856
N.E.2d 285, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.), citing R.C. 2152.12(B), State v. Watson, 47 Ohio St. 3d 93,
95-96, 547 N.E.2d 1181 (1989), State v. Douglas, 20 Ohio St. 3d 34, 36-37, 485 N.E.2d
711 (1985), and State v. Hopfer, 112 Ohio App. 3d 521, 535-536, 679 N.E.2d 321 (2d
Dist.1996). We have previously stressed that “the test is not whether we would have
-18-
reached the same result based upon the evidence in the record, the test is whether the
juvenile court abused the discretion confided in it.” Hopfer at 534. “If there is some
rational and factual basis to support the trial court's decision, we are duty bound to affirm
it regardless of our personal views of the evidence.” West at ¶ 10.
{¶ 25} In interpreting a similar predecessor statute to R.C. 2152.12, the Supreme
Court of Ohio held that:
Neither R.C. 2151.26 nor Juv.R. 30 requires the juvenile court to make
written findings as to the five factors listed in Juv.R. 30(E). The rule simply
requires the court to consider these factors in making its determination on
the amenability issue. Although the better practice would be to address
each factor, as long as sufficient, credible evidence pertaining to each
factor exists in the record before the court, the bind-over order should not be
reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion.
Douglas, 20 Ohio St. 3d at 36, 485 N.E.2d 711 (1985). In Douglas, the court also
stressed that Juv.R. 30(G) “does not require a written finding on each of the five factors
listed in Juv.R. 30(E).” Id. at 36, fn. 2. At the time, Juv.R. 30(G) stated that “[t]he order
of transfer shall state the reasons therefore.” Significantly, Juv.R. 30(G) has not been
amended since the decision in Douglas, and still contains the same wording.
{¶ 26} Paragraph 17 of the majority opinion states that the trial court’s decision
cannot be meaningfully reviewed because the court failed to identify which of the reports
that the psychologist reviewed were also reviewed by the court. In addition, the majority
contends that it cannot adequately review the trial court’s decision because the court
failed to identify or discuss what programs were available in the juvenile system to satisfy
-19-
D. H.’s “health” needs, as identified in the psychologist’s report.
{¶ 27} The majority opinion also criticizes the trial court decision because the court
did not make any specific findings about D. H.’s educational deficiencies, did not identify
what programs were available in the juvenile system to meet D. H.’s educational needs,
did not discuss what rehabilitation goals could or could not be accomplished in the
juvenile system, and did not discuss what programs were available in the juvenile system
to accomplish these goals. The majority cites no case authority for these sweeping
requirements, and I respectfully submit that research fails to disclose cases mandating
this type of particularity in a trial court decision. To the contrary, it has even been said
that “the mere fact that the trial court does not mention a specific statutory section in its
bindover order, or in comments pursuant to that order, does not mean that it failed to
consider that section.” State v. Flagg, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 93248 and 93279,
2010-Ohio-4247, ¶ 27.
{¶ 28} We have also held that “ ‘R.C. 2152.12(B)(3) only requires that the record
indicate the specific factors that the court “weighed”; it does not require a written or oral
recitation of all statutory factors.’ ” State v. Jones, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2012-CA-32,
2013-Ohio-4242, ¶ 13, quoting Flagg at ¶ 28, and citing Juv.R. 30(G). Instead, the issue
is whether the record contains “sufficient evidence to substantiate [the court’s] conclusion
that, after an investigation * * *, there were reasonable grounds to relinquish its
jurisdiction and transfer the case to the Common Pleas Court.” Carmichael, 35 Ohio
St.2d at 8, 298 N.E.2d 568.
{¶ 29} In State v. Watson, 47 Ohio St. 3d 93, 547 N.E.2d 1181 (1989), a juvenile
-20-
defendant contended that he had demonstrated amenability and that the trial court had
abused its discretion in ordering that he be transferred to adult court. Id. at 96. The
Supreme Court of Ohio noted the following facts about the amenability hearing:
At the hearing, the court clinic psychiatrist, Dr. Patrick Lagan,
testified that appellant showed “no evidence of any psychiatric disorder.”
Appellant presented testimony from his junior high school principal, two
teachers, and the school guidance counselor that he was an average
student who had not caused major discipline problems. A senior director
of the West End YMCA testified that appellant was “very responsible and
reliable.” Appellant's aunt and his grandmother also testified to his good
character. The court noted that appellant had not [sic] record of trouble
with the juvenile authorities.
(Emphasis added). Id. at 94.
{¶ 30} As a preliminary point, if prior treatment in the juvenile system were
required, the Supreme Court of Ohio would have reached a different result in Watson.
Furthermore, the juvenile court in Watson does not appear to have engaged in the type of
exacting discussion the majority has demanded in the case before us.
{¶ 31} As an additional matter, when responding to the juvenile’s arguments, the
Supreme Court of Ohio held in Watson that “[t]he seriousness of the alleged act is
relevant to ‘the assessment of the probability of rehabilitating the child within the juvenile
justice system’ for a number of reasons.” Id. at 96. These reasons included the fact
that “[a] juvenile who has demonstrated the ability to commit a major felony may require
more time for rehabilitation than one whose offenses are less serious. Because of a
-21-
juvenile's age, there may not be sufficient time remaining for rehabilitation to take place
before the twenty-first birthday, even though the juvenile is otherwise amenable to
rehabilitation.” Id. In addition, “the nature of the alleged act is usually relevant to the
child's mental health, a factor which the court must also consider under Rule 30(E)(1).
Generally the greater the culpability of the offense, the less amenable will the juvenile be
to rehabilitation.” Id.
{¶ 32} After making these remarks, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the
transfer decision, noting that:
Although we have found that the juvenile court properly considered
the nature of the offense, this does not end our inquiry. We must still
determine if the court soundly exercised its discretion. See Carmichael,
[35 Ohio St. 2d 1, 8, 298 N.E.2d 568,] supra, at paragraph two of the
syllabus. In the instant case, appellant was the principal actor in a scheme
with several other boys to beat and rob the victim, Robert Cooley.
Appellant attacked Robert from behind with a tree limb, knocking him to the
ground, and continued to hit him while he was down. These blows were
delivered with sufficient force that any one could have been fatal. The
appellant was fifteen years old and the time available to accomplish his
rehabilitation was less than six years. Balancing these facts against the
admittedly favorable testimony which appellant presented at the bindover
hearing, we cannot say that the juvenile court abused its discretion in
concluding that appellant would not be amenable to rehabilitation in the
juvenile justice system.
-22-
Watson, 47 Ohio St. 3d at 96, 547 N.E.2d 1181.
{¶ 33} The crimes D. H. committed are not significantly different than the assault
involved in Watson. The difference is that D. H. is fortunate that his victims did not sustain
greater injury or die as a result of his actions.
{¶ 34} In discussing the facts of D. H.’s alleged crimes, the majority opinion states
in paragraph 3 that “the record does not support any finding that either victim needed
medical attention or incurred medical expenses.” In my opinion, the majority understates
and minimizes the nature of D. H.’s offenses. According to the report of Dr. Fujimura,
which was provided to the defense and was stipulated to at the amenability hearing:
On March 7, 2014, per the Detective Investigatory Product prepared
through the Dayton Police Department (04-02-14), [D. H.] incurred his first
count of Robbery, a second degree felony, due to allegedly assaulting a
homeless man by punching him in the back of the head. When the victim
tried to run away, this client seemingly pursued him and punched him
several more times before demanding his money. The victim reportedly
gave the only three dollars he had to [D. H.] who said he wanted the man’s
cell phone as well. After the victim replied he was too poor to have a cell
phone, [D. H.] and the person filming the incident on a cell phone
purportedly ran away from the scene.
Id. at p. 5.3
3
I realize that Dr. Fujimura’s report was sealed by our court, pursuant to Sup.R. 45(E).
See State v. D. H., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26383 (Jan. 16, 2015). I do not see the
basis for confidentiality, as our decision failed to consider any of the applicable criteria in
Sup.R.45(E)(2)(a)-(c) for sealing records. There is also no reason why the records
should be deemed confidential. As the Supreme Court of Ohio has noted, once a
-23-
{¶ 35} The next crime escalated in severity, and was described in Dr. Fujimura’s
report as follows:
This client received his second pending count of Robbery, a second
degree felony, on April 7, 2014. According to the Detective Investigatory
Product prepared through the Dayton Police Department (04-08-14), [D. H.]
and another juvenile male co-defendant allegedly demanded money from
another homeless male[,] then assaulted him after he told them he had no
money. [D. H.] and his co-defendant reportedly knocked the victim to the
ground, kicked him in his ribs and punched him about his body. This client
and his co-defendant allegedly searched the victim’s pockets and found his
cell phone as well as an RTA bus pass. The two male co-defendants
seemingly took the victim’s property, kicked him several more times, and
ran away.
Id.
{¶ 36} The trial court was well aware of these facts, and stated, “thank God he
didn’t kill anybody or break any bones, but he assaulted two homeless men who were not
juvenile is transferred to adult court, “the need for confidentiality will dissipate.” State ex
rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Geauga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Juv. Div., 90
Ohio St. 3d 79, 88, 734 N.E.2d 1214 (2000). In any event, the facts I mention in the main
text would not be considered “confidential” or privileged. Finally, I note that the
psychologist’s report was not included in the appellate record, but was attached to D. H.’s
brief. As a general rule, “[a] reviewing court cannot add matter to the record before it,
which was not a part of the trial court's proceedings, and then decide the appeal on the
basis of the new matter.”) State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St. 2d 402, 377 N.E.2d 500 (1978),
paragraph one of the syllabus. However, the report was actually part of the trial court
proceedings, and both sides discussed the report in their briefs. There is also no dispute
that the report is the one that was used in the trial court. Rather than require the parties
to unnecessarily supplement the record, I have referred to the report (as the majority has
already also done in its decision).
-24-
able to care for themselves.” June 9, 2014 Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. II, p. 52.
{¶ 37} As was noted, the underlying crimes in this case are not significantly
different from the crime involved in Watson, although, luckily for D. H., his repeated kicks
and punches to the body of a homeless person did not cause that individual death or
more serious injury.
{¶ 38} Other evidence in the record supporting the conclusion that D. H. was not
amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile system includes D. H.’s complete failure to
respond to repeated and consistent attempts to aid him during nearly two years at Stivers
School of the Arts, where he amassed more disciplinary referrals than any other student
in the Dayton Public School District during 2013-2014 (47 alone, during the 8 months he
attended before being expelled from Stivers after his crimes were discovered).
{¶ 39} During his almost two-year tenure at Stivers, D. H. was provided with
one-on-one counseling, and he also was given progressive discipline like lunch detention,
after school detention, Saturday school, and suspensions. He was even assigned an
adult escort who walked him from class to class. However, nothing worked, and D. H.
continued to leave school without permission and skipped classes even when he had
been denied permission to leave the classroom.
{¶ 40} D. H. was also given substantial resources to help with his academic
performance, including classes with a teacher who had ten or fewer students, and a
teacher who was assigned to him for a study skills period, which could be used for tutoring
or help with classes. Despite these attempts to assist D. H., he was not progressing
academically – which is not surprising, given his lack of attendance. The trial court noted
this fact in its remarks during the amenability hearing. June 9, 2014 Transcript of
-25-
Proceedings, Volume II, p. 54.
{¶ 41} At the amenability hearing, the State also discussed D. H.’s actions in
juvenile detention, where he had bragged, joked around, and had gotten disciplined for
rule infractions, again demonstrating his indifference to compliance with rules.4
{¶ 42} At the time of the amenability hearing, D. H. was almost eighteen years old,
and nothing that had occurred to date indicated that he would positively respond to any
type of rehabilitative efforts. Instead, his behavior, both at school and in a criminal
context, was increasing in severity.
{¶ 43} As I noted previously, the majority refers in paragraph 17 to the trial court’s
failure to address how the juvenile system could accommodate D. H.’s “health needs.”
However, the only health issues mentioned in the report were that D. H. was taking
medication (although in an inconsistent way) for Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder,
and had allergies and asthma. Report of Dr. Fujimura, p. 4. He also wore glasses. Id.
There is no indication in the record that these were serious health concerns.5
{¶ 44} The majority additionally concludes that it cannot reasonably review the
decision because the trial court did not discuss D. H.’s educational needs and how they
might be served in the juvenile setting. I have already stressed that the court was not
required to engage in this type of specificity. However, the trial court did discuss the fact
that D. H. was neither mentally ill nor “mentally retarded,” which would weigh against
transfer. June 9, 2014 Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. II, p. 55. In this regard, the
majority notes in paragraph 6, fn.2, that the trial court’s conclusion of no mental illness “is
4
Dr. Fujimura’s report also mentioned these points.
5
The report does indicate that D. H. ’s father had some substantial health issues, but
these health concerns are not relevant. See Dr. Fujimura’s Report, pp. 3, 7, and 8-9.
-26-
contrary to the psychologist’s report, which did discuss a mental health diagnosis
recognized by the American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (5th Ed. 2013) and the need for treatment, which will not be quoted here
to protect health care privacy.”
{¶ 45} As a preliminary matter, the trial court record lacks any reference to the
American Psychiatric Association Manual. Courts are not permitted to rely on information
that was not properly entered into evidence. Compare State ex rel. Ohio Soc. for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. v. Hocking Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 4th Dist. Hocking
No. 13CA2, 2014-Ohio-3348, ¶ 22-25 (noting that the appellate court, acting as a trial
court in a mandamus action, would be able to consider various statements from the
American Veterinary Medical Association Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals, 2013
Edition as evidence only because the parties had stipulated to the guidelines as “learned”
and as a “reliable authority,” and had been admitted into evidence. The court would not
be able to accept the Guidelines as an exhibit, because the parties had not agreed to its
admission). (Emphasis added). See also Moretz v. Muakkassa, 137 Ohio St. 3d 171,
2013-Ohio-4656, 998 N.E.2d 479 (holding that an appellate court had erred in approving
admission of an illustration from a medical textbook because the illustration was subject
to the “learned-treatise hearsay exception set forth in Evid.R. 803(18) and therefore shall
not be admitted into evidence as an exhibit over the objection of a party.”) Id. at ¶ 57.
{¶ 46} In concluding that the admission of the illustration from the textbook was
also prejudicial, the Supreme Court of Ohio noted that:
Evid.R. 803(18) contains “safeguards against unreliability and misuse”:
Misunderstanding is guarded against by the fact that the statements
-27-
in learned treatises come to the trier of fact only through the testimony of
qualified experts who are on the stand to explain and apply the material in
the treatise. The rule provides that the treatise may be read into evidence
but not received as an exhibit to prevent the trier from giving it excessive
weight or attempting to interpret the treatise by itself.
(Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 63, quoting 2006 Staff Notes to Evid.R. 803(18).
{¶ 47} Obviously, when a learned treatise has not even been discussed in the trial
court, an appellate court would not be permitted to introduce it and to rely on it. We are
not the trier of fact, and even if we were, the information in question was never properly
admitted into evidence.
{¶ 48} As a further matter, Dr. Fujimura indicated that D. H. “did not present
evidence of a psychosis or a formal thought disorder.” See Dr. Fujimura’s Report, p. 13.
In her clinical summary and recommendations, Dr. Fujimura also did not recommend
treatment for D. H., other than stating that “[d]ue to being almost age 18 and being so far
behind academically, it seems feasible for [D. H.] to consider participating in a vocational
program to prepare him for independent living.” Id. at p. 12.
{¶ 49} The trial court also discussed D. H.’s limited education and poor grades, but
concluded that this would be expected in an individual who never attend school. Id. at p.
54. In this regard, Dr. Fujimura’s report indicates that despite cognitive ability that was
average or low average, D. H.’s educational level was well below what one would expect.
Dr. Fujimura’s Report, pp. 9-10. However, D. H. had 55 unexcused absences alone
during 110 school days in 2013-2014, to say nothing of the 40 times he was tardy and the
47 discipline referrals he received in 2013-2014, including 27 times that he left school
-28-
without permission. Id. at pp. 5-6. Again, poor achievement despite average or low
average ability would not be surprising under these circumstances. In addition, D. H.’s
principal stressed that D. H. was completely resistant to any help that was offered. Thus,
the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s conclusion on D. H.’s educational
ability and how it related to transfer.
{¶ 50} Accordingly, for the reasons stated, I very respectfully dissent from the
majority’s decision to remand this case for further analysis by the trial court. Our
decision to remand is not supported by pertinent case law or by the facts of this case. In
addition, the trial court’s transfer decision is sufficiently supported by the record and
should be affirmed.
...............
Copies mailed to:
Mathias H. Heck
Carley J. Ingram
Brock A. Schoenlein
Hon. Anthony Capizzi
Hon. Mary K. Huffman