State v. Jones
2013 Ohio 3725
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- In 2012 Santana Jones (age 16) was charged in juvenile court with three counts of felonious assault and one count of discharge of a firearm; each count carried firearm specifications. The state moved for discretionary transfer to adult court under R.C. 2152.12(B).
- At a probable-cause hearing the court found probable cause; at an amenability hearing the juvenile court concluded Jones was not amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile system and transferred the case to the common pleas court.
- Jones was indicted as an adult, pleaded guilty pursuant to a deal to discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises with a three-year firearm specification, and was sentenced to an aggregate four-year prison term.
- The juvenile court relied on factors including Jones’s extensive juvenile record (22 prior cases), prior services (probation, home detention, six months in a locked community control facility), that he was on probation at the time of the offense, that he had a firearm during the offense, and the court psychologist’s view that he was mature enough for transfer.
- The juvenile court discounted some mitigating factors (good behavior while confined) and, although it acknowledged lack of evidence of psychological harm to victims and lack of proof the offense was gang-related, found the aggregate factors supported bindover.
- The court of appeals affirmed, concluding the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding Jones not amenable to juvenile rehabilitation and in ordering transfer to adult court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court abused its discretion in transferring Jones to adult court under R.C. 2152.12(B) | The state argued the juvenile court properly considered statutory factors and reasonably concluded Jones was not amenable to juvenile rehabilitation and posed a public safety risk | Jones argued the juvenile system still had resources to rehabilitate him, he had responded well to treatment while confined, and transfer was unnecessary | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court’s amenability finding reasonable given history, probation status, firearm use, and failure to reform after services |
| Whether factors in R.C. 2152.12(D)/(E) were properly applied | State relied on multiple D factors (prior record, firearm possession/use, maturity, prior failure of services) | Jones argued some D factors did not apply (no proof of victim psychological harm; offense not shown to be gang-related) | Even discounting certain factors, sufficient other factors supported transfer; lack of psychological-harm evidence did not render decision unreasonable |
| Whether juvenile resources were exhausted (e.g., DYS not yet used) and time existed to rehabilitate | State: prior interventions (probation, locked facility) had failed to change behavior; public safety required adult sanctions | Jones: had not been committed to DYS; he did well in program while confined and could be rehabilitated before age 21 | Court found juvenile options had been tried and failed to produce lasting change; transfer justified despite DYS not previously used |
| Whether arguments about harms of adult incarceration (risk of assault/suicide, loss of juvenile programs) warranted reversal | State: not raised below; bindover decision must stand if not an abuse of discretion | Jones: adult confinement would be more harmful than juvenile disposition and was not argued at amenability hearing | Court declined to consider those arguments on appeal (waived) and noted Jones had rejected a pre-hearing DYS plea offer |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.J.S., 120 Ohio St.3d 185 (discussion of abuse-of-discretion standard for juvenile bindover)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- State v. D.W., 133 Ohio St.3d 434 (juvenile system goal is rehabilitation; bindover reflects finding of non-amenability)
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (juvenile proceedings focus on rehabilitation; transfer implications)
- State v. Hanning, 89 Ohio St.3d 86 (transfer requires finding juvenile not amenable to rehabilitation or poses public safety threat)
- State ex rel. Quarto Mining Co. v. Foreman, 79 Ohio St.3d 78 (appellate courts generally will not consider arguments raised for first time on appeal)