State v. Rickard
2017 Ohio 8614
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- At age 16, Charles Rickard was arrested for a January 2016 robbery and shooting; he remained a minor at the time of the charged conduct.
- Juvenile court charged Rickard in two juvenile cases: attempted murder (2016-JF-009) and related offenses (2016-JF-0016).
- State moved for mandatory transfer to adult common pleas court under Ohio’s juvenile bindover statutes because Rickard was 16 and charged with a category-one offense. Rickard stipulated to probable cause and the juvenile court transferred the cases; Rickard and his mother consented.
- In common pleas court Rickard pled guilty in case No. 2016-CR-134 to complicity to aggravated robbery with a gun spec and was sentenced to a total of eight years (including concurrent sentence from a separate bill of information).
- Separately, the state filed a bill of information in common pleas court (2016-CR-360) charging offenses that allegedly occurred in June–July 2016; Rickard pled guilty to attempted felonious assault in that case and the sentence was imposed concurrently.
- On appeal the Sixth District held (1) mandatory juvenile bindover statutes do not violate due process/equal protection, but (2) the convictions in 2016-CR-360 must be vacated because those charges were never initiated or bound over through juvenile court, depriving the common pleas court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The judgment in 2016-CR-134 was otherwise affirmed but modified to remove reference to the vacated concurrent sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of mandatory juvenile bindover under R.C. 2152.10/2152.12 | Bindover violates juvenile due process and Ohio Constitution (citing Aalim) | Bindover is constitutional and may transfer certain juveniles to adult court | Court held bindover statutes constitutional and rejected Rickard’s due process claim |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction for crimes charged by bill of information in common pleas (2016-CR-360) | 2016-CR-360 should have been initiated in juvenile court; common pleas lacked jurisdiction because no juvenile bindover occurred | State proceeded in common pleas via bill of information; jurisdiction proper | Court vacated conviction in 2016-CR-360 because juvenile court had exclusive initial jurisdiction and no bindover occurred |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to bindover | Counsel should have objected to constitutionality of mandatory bindover | Counsel’s performance was not deficient because bindover statutes are constitutional | Court found no deficient performance on bindover claim (bindover constitutional) and found the jurisdiction argument moot given reversal of 2016-CR-360 |
| Remedy and sentence modification | N/A | N/A | Court reversed in part and affirmed in part: vacated 2016-CR-360 judgment, instructed trial court to remove reference to that concurrent sentence from 2016-CR-134 judgment; otherwise affirmed 2016-CR-134 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wilson, 73 Ohio St.3d 40, 652 N.E.2d 196 (1995) (juvenile court has exclusive initial subject-matter jurisdiction absent proper bindover)
- State v. Hester, 45 Ohio St.2d 71, 341 N.E.2d 304 (1976) (test for whether accused received a fair trial and substantial justice—standard referenced in ineffective-assistance analysis)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 714 N.E.2d 905 (1999) (application of prejudice inquiry in ineffective-assistance claims)