State v. L.A.B., 2021 Ohio 4323

Background

At 17, appellant L.A.B. was alleged to have committed a home invasion (kidnapping, robbery, aggravated menacing, aggravated robbery) on Aug. 24, 2017; an inoperable Uzi‑style BB gun was later recovered. The State sought discretionary bindover to adult court.
Juvenile court held probable‑cause and amenability hearings, found probable cause for most offenses (not gun specifications at that stage) and ultimately ruled appellant not amenable to juvenile rehabilitation, ordering transfer to adult court.
The grand jury indicted L.A.B. on three aggravated‑robbery counts and two kidnapping counts, each with three‑year firearm specifications; the trial court denied a defense motion to dismiss the firearm specifications.
L.A.B. pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery; firearm specifications and other counts were nolled as part of the plea; he was sentenced to seven years (concurrent).
On appeal he raised three assignments: (1) prosecutorial misconduct/overcharging by pursuing firearm specs despite forensic evidence the item was a BB gun; (2) insufficiency of evidence/incorrect burden/standard for non‑amenability in juvenile bindover; (3) juvenile court abused discretion by not considering a blended/serious‑youthful‑offender (SYO) disposition. The appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor abused charging discretion/violated due process by pursuing firearm specs despite operability report showing a BB gun	Grand jury may indict on any charges supported by grand jury evidence; juvenile court's no‑PC finding re: gun spec did not bar adult indictment; any professional‑conduct complaint is for disciplinary authorities; no prejudice because specs were dismissed in plea	Prosecutor acted in bad faith and violated due process and Prof.Cond.R. 3.8 by seeking firearm specs after juvenile court found no probable cause and operability report showed a BB gun; indictment therefore invalid	Guilty plea waived most challenges to indictment; disciplinary rules not a basis for reversal on appeal; grand jury indictment permitted; no prejudice because firearm specs were nolled — assignment overruled
Juvenile court erred in finding non‑amenability; who bears burden and standard of proof	Juvenile court's amenability decision reviewed for abuse of discretion; appellant waived challenges to burden/standard by not raising them below; record supports weighing R.C. 2152.12(D)/(E) factors in favor of transfer	Prosecutor should bear burden of proving non‑amenability by clear and convincing evidence; evidence was insufficient/ not credible to support transfer	Issues about burden/standard were not preserved; Supreme Court precedent requires abuse‑of‑discretion review; juvenile court considered statutory factors and had a rational basis — no abuse of discretion; assignment overruled
Juvenile court should have considered blended/SYO disposition before transferring	SYO disposition is only available when the prosecutor initiates the SYO process or the case remains in juvenile court; here prosecutor did not seek SYO and the case was transferred	Juvenile court should have treated SYO/blended sentence as an "other relevant factor" and preferred alternative to transfer	SYO unavailable once case is transferred and the prosecutor did not initiate the SYO procedure; juvenile court did not err in refusing to treat SYO as an option — assignment overruled

Key Cases Cited

State v. Adams, 69 Ohio St.2d 120 (1982) (grand jury may return indictments based on facts presented even if juvenile court charged differently)
In re M.P., 124 Ohio St.3d 445 (2010) (amenability determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. D.H., 120 Ohio St.3d 540 (2009) (explains SYO/blended disposition framework)
State v. Watson, 47 Ohio St.3d 93 (1989) (juvenile court has wide latitude to retain or relinquish jurisdiction)
State v. Barton, 108 Ohio St.3d 402 (2006) (guilty plea waives indictment defects on direct appeal)