State v. Marshall
2016 Ohio 3184
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In Oct. 2014 the state filed four delinquency complaints against 15‑year‑old DeMilo Marshall for two separate aggravated‑robbery incidents (Sept. 13 and Sept. 22, 2014); one robbery resulted in a victim paralyzed by a gunshot.
- Juvenile court held probable‑cause hearings, found probable cause on all four complaints, and conducted a discretionary‑bindover proceeding under R.C. 2152.12 because Marshall was under 16.
- The court ordered a full amenability evaluation; two experts (a child psychologist and a forensic psychiatrist) opined Marshall would be amenable to juvenile rehabilitation.
- Despite the experts’ opinions, the juvenile court transferred (bound over) Marshall to adult court, citing several R.C. 2152.12(D) factors (including organized criminal activity and community safety).
- Marshall was indicted in common pleas court, pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to attempted murder and three aggravated‑robbery counts, and received a jointly recommended 12‑year prison term.
- On appeal Marshall challenged only the juvenile court’s transfer/amenability determination; the First District affirmed, holding the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Marshall waive challenge to bindover by failing to object in juvenile court and by pleading guilty in adult court? | State: Marshall waived challenge; plea extinguishes bindover claim. | Marshall: He preserved the issue by moving in juvenile court to retain jurisdiction and by objecting at sentencing; subject‑matter defects are not waived. | Court: No waiver; appellate review permitted. |
| Standard of review for bindover error (plain error or de novo)? | State: Review limited to plain error (Quarterman). | Marshall: Quarterman inapplicable because he timely raised the bindover issue. | Court: Quarterman did not apply; considered merits under abuse‑of‑discretion standard. |
| Did juvenile court abuse its discretion in finding Marshall not amenable to juvenile rehabilitation? | State: The court properly weighed statutory factors (severity, community safety, organized activity) and could reject expert opinions. | Marshall: Experts recommended juvenile treatment; many R.C. 2152.12(E) factors weighed against transfer. | Court: No abuse of discretion; juvenile court permissibly weighed factors and had rational basis to transfer. |
| Were specific statutory findings unsupported (e.g., R.C. 2152.12(D)(6) prior supervision)? | State: Worksheet findings supported transfer overall. | Marshall: Record does not show he was awaiting adjudication or under community control at time of offenses. | Court: Agreed record did not support D(6) finding but error was harmless because other supported factors justified transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McKinney, 46 N.E.3d 179 (Ohio Ct. App.) (distinguishing mandatory bindover at age 16–17 from discretionary bindover)
- State v. Underwood, 922 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2010) (procedural issues and plea implications in post‑bindover challenges)
- State v. Quarterman, 19 N.E.3d 900 (Ohio 2014) (limitations on appellate review when bindover claims not raised)
- In re A.J.S., 897 N.E.2d 629 (Ohio 2008) (standard of review for juvenile‑transfer determinations)
- State v. Watson, 547 N.E.2d 1181 (Ohio 1989) (seriousness of offense and community safety relevant to transfer)
- State v. West, 856 N.E.2d 285 (Ohio Ct. App.) (juvenile court may weigh statutory factors and rely on record reason),