In re D.M.
2017 Ohio 8768
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- At 17, D.M. committed two separate shootings within ~20 minutes, seriously injuring two strangers; initially charged in juvenile court with aggravated robbery and felonious assault (firearm specs) and mandatorily bound over to adult court.
- In adult court D.M. pled guilty to two counts of felonious assault with gun specifications; other counts were dismissed; trial court imposed consecutive terms totaling 15 years.
- Counsel later sought vacatur and reverse-bindover; the state agreed case required R.C. 2152.121 reverse-bindover because convictions corresponded to offenses that would have led only to discretionary (not mandatory) transfer.
- Trial court stayed execution and remanded to juvenile court for an amenability hearing. Experts and witnesses testified; juvenile court found D.M. not amenable to juvenile rehabilitation (citing factors including severity, use of firearm, maturity, and insufficient time before age 21) and returned jurisdiction to adult court.
- The general-division court reimposed the prior 15-year consecutive sentence; D.M. appealed challenging (1) the juvenile court’s amenability finding and (2) the imposition of consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (D.M.) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court abused discretion in finding D.M. not amenable to juvenile rehabilitation under R.C. 2152.12(B) | Record lacks sufficient factual support for findings (esp. D(9) insufficient time), court relied on adult incarceration exposure, failed to properly apply adolescent brain science | Court considered statutory factors, expert testimony and exhibits supported findings; seriousness, firearm use, maturity and limited time before 21 justified transfer | Affirmed: juvenile court did not abuse discretion; findings had rational basis in record |
| Whether the juvenile court improperly used offense seriousness to support both non-amenability and community safety | Seriousness cannot be used for both elements | Seriousness can inform both rehabilitation prospects and community safety; courts may rely on same evidence for different statutory factors | Rejected: using offense seriousness for both elements permissible and supported here |
| Whether amenability finding was tainted by D.M.’s months in adult custody before reverse-bindover | Amenability determination was influenced by D.M.’s exposure to adult system and thus unreliable | Even without that comment, independent evidence (expert testing, witness testimony) supported maturity and amenability findings | Rejected: record independently supported maturity finding; no taint shown |
| Whether consecutive sentences were unsupported and thus improper under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Consecutive terms disproportionate; record insufficient to show danger to public or that harm was so great/unusual | Nature of offenses — two separate, severe, random shootings within a short span and possession of another firearm — supported necessity and proportionality for consecutive terms | Affirmed: consecutive sentences not plainly erroneous; trial court’s findings supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wilson, 73 Ohio St.3d 40 (discusses narrow exception to juvenile court jurisdiction and transfer statutes)
- State v. Aalim, 150 Ohio St.3d 489 (addresses mandatory transfer statutes and their scope)
- State v. Watson, 47 Ohio St.3d 93 (severity of offense relates to amenability; less amenable juveniles for greater culpability)
- State v. D.B., 150 Ohio St.3d 452 (explains reverse-bindover procedure under R.C. 2152.121)
- State v. Hopfer, 112 Ohio App.3d 521 (evidence supporting relinquishment of juvenile jurisdiction need only reasonably support decision)