2022 Ohio 3497
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- In March 2020, 15‑year‑old Tacarie Cunningham was linked by police to a shooting at an after‑hours Toledo bar in which C.C. was killed; surveillance video shown at a juvenile probable‑cause hearing depicted Cunningham pointing/firing a gun and later bending to pick up an item.
- Police testimony identified Cunningham from the video and an investigator opined the item picked up was likely shell casings; no shell casings or the murder weapon were recovered.
- Juvenile court held probable‑cause and amenability hearings; psychiatrist Dr. Sherman evaluated Cunningham and expressed concern about the nature of the offense and an apparent lack of remorse, affecting amenability.
- The juvenile court exercised its discretion and transferred the case to adult court, finding factors favoring transfer outweighed those against it and that community safety required adult sanctions.
- Cunningham entered an Alford plea to felony murder in adult court, received 15 years to life, and appealed raising challenges to probable cause, amenability standards/burden of proof, failure to consider SYO/blended disposition, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cunningham) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of probable cause at juvenile bindover | Evidence was minimal, raised many questions and alternative theories so not credible | Video ID, witness statements, investigator testimony (shooting and pickup of casings) raised more than mere suspicion | Probable cause supported by credible evidence; bindover proper |
| Constitutionality of probable‑cause standard in R.C. 2152.12(B) | Statute/probable‑cause standard violates due process; needs greater protection | Issue forfeited for appeal; no plain‑error showing | Forfeited; court declined to find plain error or alter standard |
| Burden/standard for amenability (clear & convincing?) | Statute silent; state should bear burden and prove non‑amenability by clear & convincing evidence | Issue forfeited; juvenile court may weigh factors and no fixed burden required | Forfeited; no plain error; juvenile court’s entry indicated it was “clearly convinced” (clear & convincing) |
| Failure to consider serious youthful offender (SYO) or all juvenile dispositions | Juvenile court failed to weigh SYO/blended options before transfer | SYO unavailable absent prosecution initiation and irrelevant once transferred | No plain error; SYO was not an available option here |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to seek clear‑and‑convincing standard and pursue SYO, prejudicing outcome | Counsel not ineffective for not raising meritless or unavailable requests | No ineffective assistance: counsel’s choices were reasonable; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.J.S., 120 Ohio St.3d 185 (Ohio 2008) (bindover requires credible evidence of each element but not unassailable proof)
- State v. Iacona, 93 Ohio St.3d 83 (Ohio 2001) (probable cause standard for juvenile bindover)
- In re D.M., 140 Ohio St.3d 309 (Ohio 2014) (probable‑cause threshold in juvenile transfer hearings)
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1966) (procedural protections required at juvenile transfer)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (plea where defendant maintains innocence but concedes sufficient evidence for conviction)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)