State v. Mays
2014 Ohio 3815
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- On Nov. 4, 2012 three women were robbed at gunpoint in Cleveland; one victim (Speights) later identified two males detained by police as her assailants; officers found the getaway vehicle was stolen.
- Appellant Arran Mays (16 at the time) and codefendant Marcus Beauregard were arrested after a police pursuit; Beauregard was observed fleeing with a firearm.
- Juvenile court held a probable-cause bindover hearing and transferred the case to adult common pleas under Ohio’s mandatory-transfer statutes (R.C. 2152.10(A)(2)(b) and 2152.12).
- Mays was indicted in common pleas court; he pled guilty to aggravated robbery (with firearm), amended robbery, amended felonious assault, and receiving stolen property; remaining counts dismissed.
- Trial court sentenced Mays to an aggregate six-year prison term (three years on the firearm spec consecutive to three years on the aggravated robbery; other counts concurrent).
- Mays appealed raising seven assignments of error challenging (inter alia) the juvenile bindover, transfer of receiving-stolen-property count, sentencing procedures under R.C. 2152.121, constitutional challenges to mandatory bindover, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was there probable cause for mandatory juvenile bindover on aggravated robbery (firearm)? | State: victim ID + defendant observed in back seat + vehicle matched description + stolen car + cold-stand ID support probable cause. | Mays: state failed to show he personally possessed/used a firearm during the robberies. | Court: Probable cause existed as to Count 2 (Speights); mandatory bindover appropriate; once one mandatory count justified transfer, related counts arising from same course of conduct may be transferred. |
| 2. Was transferring the receiving-stolen-property charge (a non-category offense) error? | State: the receiving charge arose from same course of conduct (possession of the stolen getaway car) and R.C. 2152.12(I) terminates juvenile court jurisdiction after proper transfer. | Mays: juvenile court should have followed R.C. 2152.12(F)/(B) amenability procedures before transferring that non-category offense. | Court: No error — once mandatory transfer of a same-course-of-conduct offense occurred, juvenile proceedings on related counts are discontinued and trial court need not apply separate discretionary-transfer procedures. |
| 3. Did the trial court err under R.C. 2152.121 in sentencing Counts 6,7,10 and failing to remand? | Mays: those counts were not mandatory-transfer offenses and required the R.C. 2152.121 reverse-bindover procedures; therefore court should have stayed or remanded. | State: Count 2 required mandatory transfer; the court properly sentenced under Chapter 2929 and ran Counts 6,7,10 concurrent to Count 2, so no prejudice. | Court: Any R.C. 2152.121 error was harmless because sentences ran concurrent to the mandatory-transfer sentence; court’s approach was permissible and did not change outcome. |
| 4. Do R.C. 2152.10(A)(2)(b) and 2152.12(A)(1)(b) violate due process, equal protection, or Eighth Amendment? | Mays: statutes are unconstitutional under due process, equal protection, and cruel and unusual punishment prohibitions when applied to juveniles. | State: statutes are constitutional; mandatory bindover is procedural and not punishment; precedent upholds statutes. | Court: Mays waived constitutional challenges by pleading guilty and by failing to raise them earlier; in any event, precedents hold the statutes constitutional and Eighth Amendment challenges inapplicable here. |
| 5. Ineffective assistance for failing to object to transfer/constitutionality? | Mays: counsel should have objected to juvenile transfer and to statute’s constitutionality. | State: transfer was legally proper and constitutional; counsel’s failure to object was not deficient. | Court: No deficient performance — transfer and statutes were proper; ineffective-assistance claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.P., 124 Ohio St.3d 445 (2010) (juvenile court jurisdiction and transfer principles)
- State v. D.W., 133 Ohio St.3d 434 (2012) (distinction between mandatory and discretionary transfer)
- State v. Hanning, 89 Ohio St.3d 86 (2000) (mandatory bindover requires the juvenile personally possessed/used the firearm)
- State v. Iacona, 93 Ohio St.3d 83 (2001) (probable-cause standard and evaluation at bindover)
- In re A.J.S., 120 Ohio St.3d 185 (2008) (probable cause for bindover is more than suspicion; mixed standard review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio adoption of Strickland)