State v. Reese, 2019 Ohio 3680

Juvenile court received 30 delinquency complaints against Thomas Reese for primarily burglaries committed July–October 2016; he was nearly 18 at the amenability hearing.
Two psychologists testified Reese had cognitive and language deficits, a troubled family history, responded to structured settings, and might benefit from intensive juvenile treatment but could not predict rehabilitation within three years.
The juvenile court conducted an amenability hearing, weighed statutory factors (harm to victims, number/seriousness of offenses, organized criminal activity, escape from prior placement, maturity, role as principal), and relinquished jurisdiction to adult court.
Reese was indicted in common pleas, pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreed 14-year sentence to multiple burglary- and property-related counts, and appealed raising two assignments of error.
This court affirmed the discretionary bindover (no abuse of discretion), but reversed the portion of the judgment taxing appointed-counsel fees as criminal costs and remanded for an ability-to-pay determination and, if appropriate, entry of a separate civil judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discretionary bindover — whether juvenile court abused its discretion in transferring to adult court	State: juvenile court considered R.C. 2152.12 factors and had rational basis to transfer	Reese: court ignored expert opinions and misweighed statutory factors	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court may weigh or discount experts and considered applicable factors
Appointed-counsel fees — whether trial court could tax appointed‑counsel fees as criminal costs without further finding	State: costs under R.C. 2947.23 mandatory; fees fall within court’s sentencing authority	Reese: court erred by taxing appointed‑counsel fees as costs without assessing present/future ability to pay	Reverse in part — appointed‑counsel fees cannot be taxed as criminal costs; remand to determine ability to pay and, if able, enter separate civil judgment
Mandatory court costs reviewability in agreed sentence — whether appellate court can review imposition of mandatory costs in an agreed sentence	State: agreed joint recommendation limits review under former R.C. 2953.08(D)(1)	Reese: challenges to statutory compliance still reviewable	Court: mandatory costs under R.C. 2947.23 are part of sentence and not reviewable under the agreed-sentence rule; that portion affirmed

In re M.P., 124 Ohio St.3d 445 (2010) (juvenile amenability determinations are fact‑intensive and reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (2010) (jointly recommended sentence imposed by judge is not appealable if authorized by law)
State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (2006) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing and related determinations)
State v. Clevenger, 114 Ohio St.3d 258 (2007) (R.C. 2947.23 requires assessment of court costs in criminal cases)
State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580 (2004) (treatment of mandatory costs and indigency)
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (2003) (standards for overruling prior appellate precedent)