State v. D.W.
2012 Ohio 4544
Ohio2012Background
- D.W., age 17, was charged with burglary and other offenses in juvenile court in Cuyahoga County.
- A probable-cause hearing occurred; the court indicated transfer to adult court and noted prior bindover, suggesting no further amenability hearing.
- D.W. was bound over and indicted; a jury acquitted bribery and convicted other charges, resulting in a six-year prison sentence with mandatory postrelease control.
- The Eighth District affirmed, holding the amenability hearing was not conducted but that waiver occurred through counsel.
- The Ohio Supreme Court granted discretionary review to decide whether an amenability hearing can be waived and the proper waiver standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can an amenability hearing be waived in discretionary transfer to adult court? | D.W. or counsel purportedly waived the hearing. | Waiver cannot be implied; proper waiver procedures required. | Yes, waiver is possible with express on-record waiver and meaningful colloquy. |
| What standards govern a valid waiver of the amenability hearing? | Waiver should be recognized under Juv.R. 3 with court approval; record should reflect waiver. | Waiver must be explicit and knowingly relinquished; inadequate on-record waiver invalid. | Two-step process: express on-record waiver through counsel and on-record colloquy to show knowing, voluntary, intelligent waiver. |
| What is the proper application of waiver in D.W.'s case? | Waiver was effectively accomplished; amenability hearing unnecessary due to prior bindover. | No valid waiver on the record; amenability hearing required. | Record lacks express waiver; remand for an amenability hearing or proper waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966) (due process and need for hearing before transfer of juveniles)
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) (juvenile rights require constitutional safeguards)
- In re C.S., 115 Ohio St.3d 267 (2007) (waiver of rights (including counsel) requires on-record, informed relinquishment)
- State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437 (2002) (extensive safeguards for juvenile due process protections)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (juveniles have diminished culpability and require tailored sentencing considerations)
- State v. Adams, 69 Ohio St.2d 120 (1982) (binding over rules later overruled; case questioned treatment of prior bindovers)
- Kent, — (—) (reiterates parens patriae duties and need for due process in juvenile transfers)