STATE OF OHIO v. JA‘RELLE SMITH
C.A. No. 26804
In the Court of Appeals, Ninth Judicial District
February 18, 2015
2015-Ohio-579
WHITMORE, Judge.
COUNTY OF SUMMIT. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO. CASE No. CR 11 12 3560 (D)
Dated: February 18, 2015
WHITMORE, Judge.
{¶1} Appellant, Ja‘Relle Smith, appeals from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I
{¶2} In late December 2011, Smith approached a woman in her attached garage and forced her, at gunpoint, into the backseat of her car. Smith, and his accomplices, drove thе victim to two different ATMs and forced her to withdraw cash. Then, they drove the victim to a cemetery, robbed her of personal items, and fled in her car. For these acts, Smith was charged with aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and kidnapping in juvenile case number DL12-01-008.
{¶3} On another occasion in late December 2011, Smith approached a mentally challenged 60-year-old male in front of his home and forced him inside at gunpoint. Once inside, Smith robbed the man, a 63-year-old mentally challenged female, and an 84-year-old
{¶4} On yet another, separate occasion in late December 2011, Smith approached a female outside of her home, forced her inside at gunpoint, and robbed her. Smith was charged with aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and kidnapping in case number DL12-03-692. Additionally, Smith‘s DNA was matched to blood found in a home that had been burglarized and he was charged with burglary in case number DL-12-03-687.
{¶5} On March 22, 2012, the juvenile court held a hearing in which Smith, his attorney, and his father attended. Smith waived probable cause in case numbers 008, 519, and 319 and denied the newly filed charges in case numbers 687 and 692. The court granted the State‘s previously filed motion to relinquish jurisdiction to the court of common pleas in case numbers 008, 519, and 319. The State informed the juvenile court that it would file a similar motion for cаse numbers 687 and 692.
{¶6} On March 27, 2012, the juvenile court held a hearing on case numbers 687 and 692. Smith and his attorney were present, Smith‘s father was not. Smith waived probable cause in both cases. The court set case number 687 (burglary) for an amenability hearing and granted the State‘s motion to transfer case number 692 to the court of common pleas.
{¶7} On April 10, 2012, Smith was indicted in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas on five counts of aggravated robbery, three counts of aggravated burglary, two counts of kidnapping, and one count of burglary. All counts contained a firearm specification. On January 2, 2013, Smith pleaded guilty to twо counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated burglary, one count of kidnapping, and one firearm specification. The remaining charges and
II
Assignment of Error Number One
THE JUVENILE COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO APPOINT A GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR JA‘RELLE SMITH‘S PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING BEFORE CASE NO. DL12-03-0692 WAS TRANSFERRED TO CRIMINAL COURT, IN VIOLATION OF
JUV.R. 4(B)(1) ANDR.C. 2151.281(A)(1) .
{¶8} In his first assignment of error, Smith argues that the juvenile court committed plain error when it failed to appoint him a guardian ad litem during the probable cause hearing in which his father did not attend. We disagree.
{¶9} Pursuant to
[f]irst, there must be an еrror, i.e., a deviation from the legal rule. * * * Second, the error must be plain. To be “plain” within the meaning of
Crim.R. 52(B) , an error must be an “obvious” defect in the trial proceedings. * * * Third, the error must have affected “substantial rights [ ]” [to the extent that it] * * * affected the outcome of the trial.
(Alterations sic.) State v. Hardges, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24175, 2008-Ohio-5567, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002).
{¶10} On March 27, 2012, the court hеld a probable cause hearing for case numbers 692 and 687. Smith and his attorney were present, but his father was not. Smith orally waived his
{¶11} Smith argues thаt the juvenile court erred when it failed to appoint a guardian ad litem, pursuant to
{¶12} To the extent Smith argues his convictions stemming from case number 692 are void because the juvenile court did not adhere to certain statutory and rule requirements during his bindover hearing, thesе arguments are beyond the scope of the stated assignment of error and will not be addressed. See Pleban, 2011-Ohio-3254, ¶ 41.
Assignment of Error Number Two
THE SUMMIT COUNTY JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT TRANSFERRED JA‘RELLE SMITH‘S KIDNAPPING CHARGES TO CRIMINAL COURT WITHOUT CONDUCTING AN AMENABILITY HEARING, IN VIOLATION OF
R.C. 2152.10(A)(2) AND2152.12(A)(1)(b) ; THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION; AND THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, SECTION 16.
{¶13} In his second assignment of error, Smith argues that his kidnapping conviction is void because the juvenile court failed to properly transfer subject matter jurisdiction to the court
{¶14} The juvenile court has the exclusive original jurisdiction over “a person under eighteen years of age [who] аllegedly commits an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult.”
{¶15} There are two types of transfers from juvenile court to the court of common pleas: discretionary and mandatory. Id. at ¶ 10. “Mandatory transfer removes discretion from judges in the transfer decision in certain situations. Discretionary transfer, as its name implies, аllows judges the discretion to transfer or bind over to adult court certain juveniles who do not appear to be amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system or appear to be a threat to public safety.” (Internal citations and quotations omitted.) Id. Before the court may exercise its discretion in transferring a case to common pleas, it must conduct a hearing and consider certain factors for and against the transfer.
{¶16} Smith acknowledges that his aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary charges were subject to mandatory bindover. See
If the court determines that division (A) of this section applies and requires that the case or cases involving one or more of the acts charged be transferred, the
court shall transfer the case or cases in accordance with that division. After the transfer pursuant to division (A) of this section, the court shall decide, in accordance with division (B) of this section, whеther to grant the motion requesting that the cases or cases involving one or more of the acts charged be transferred pursuant to that division.
Smith asserts that this provision requires the court to parse out mandatory bindover charges from discretionary charges even when they all arise frоm the same act. We disagree.
{¶17}
If one or more complaints are filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child for committing two or more acts that would be offenses if committed by an adult, if a motion is made alleging that division (A) of this section applies and requires that the case or casеs involving one or more of the acts charged be transferred for, and if a motion is made requesting that the case or cases involving one or more of the acts charged be transferred pursuant to division (B) of this section, the juvenile court, in deciding the motions, shall proceed in the follоwing manner:
(1) Initially, the court shall decide the motion alleging that division (A) of this section applies and requires that the case or cases involving one or more of the acts charged be transferred.
(2) If the court determines that division (A) of this section applies and requires that the case or cases involving one or more of the acts charged be transferred, the court shall transfer the case or cases in accordance with that division. After the transfer pursuant to division (A) of this section, the court shall decide, in accordance with division (B) of this section, whether to grant thе motion requesting that the cases or cases involving one or more of the acts charged be transferred pursuant to that division. * * *
Thus,
{¶18} At the March 22, 2012 hearing, the State sought to bind over case numbers 008, 519, and 319 under division (A). Therefore,
{¶19} At the March 27, 2012 hearing, thе State sought to transfer case number 692 pursuant to
{¶20} Smith argues that, pursuant to
{¶21} The plain language of
{¶22} In case number 008, the State alleged that Smith approached the victim inside her attached garage, forced her into the backseat of her car at gunpoint, drove her to two different banks, forced hеr to withdraw money, dropped her at another location, robbed her, and then fled in her car. Smith was charged with aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and kidnapping. In case numbers 519 and 319, the State alleged that Smith approached a mentally challenged 60-year-old man outside of his hоme and forced him inside at gunpoint. According to the State, Smith then robbed the man, a 63-year-old mentally challenged female, and an 84-year-old female. Smith was charged with three counts of aggravated robbery, three counts of aggravated burglary, and one count of kidnapping. In casе number 692, the State alleged that Smith approached a woman outside of her home and forced her inside at gunpoint where he robbed her. Smith was charged with aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and kidnapping. Because Smith‘s kidnapping charges all arose from the same course of conduct as the respective aggravated robberies and aggravated burglaries, the court did not error in transferring the kidnapping charges once it had determined the aggravated robberies and aggravated burglaries were subject to mandatory bindover. Mays at ¶ 32; Washington at ¶ 14; Brookshire at ¶ 13-21; Sims at ¶ 30. See also
Assignment of Error Number Three
THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT TRANSFERRED JA‘RELLE SMITH‘S CASES TO CRIMINAL COURT BECAUSE THE MANDATORY TRANSFER PROVISIONS IN
R.C. 2152.10(A)(2)(b) AND2152.12(A)(1)(b) ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN VIOLATION OF A CHILD‘S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 16, OHIO CONSTITUTION.
Assignment of Error Number Four
THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT TRANSFERRED JA‘RELLE SMITH‘S CASES TO CRIMINAL COURT BECAUSE THE MANDATORY TRANSFER PROVISIONS IN
R.C. 2152.10(A)(2)(b) AND2152.12(A)(1)(b) VIOLATE A CHILD‘S RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 2, OHIO CONSTITUTION.
Assignment of Error Number Five
THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT TRANSFERRED JA‘RELLE SMITH‘S CASES TO CRIMINAL COURT BECAUSE THE MANDATORY TRANSFER PROVISIONS IN
R.C. 2152.10(A)(2)(b) AND2152.12(A)(1)(b) VIOLATE THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT AS GUARANTEED BY THE EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, OHIO CONSTITUTION.
{¶24} In his third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error, Smith argues that the mandatory bindover statutes violate his constitutional rights. We decline to address the merits of his arguments, however, because Smith has waived them by pleading guilty.
{¶25} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that “a defendant who * * * voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently enters a guilty plea with the assistance of counsel ‘may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.‘” State v. Fitzpatrick, 102 Ohio St.3d 321, 2004-Ohio-3167, ¶ 78, quoting Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). “This Court has
{¶26} Smith does not raise any allegation that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily given. Nor does Smith argue that his trial counsel was ineffective in any way. Instead, Smith limits his challenge to the сonstitutionality of the bindover statutes. Because Smith pleaded guilty, he has waived these arguments. See Quarterman at ¶ 6. Therefore, Smith‘s third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error are overruled.
III
{¶27} Smith‘s five assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandatе issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
Costs taxed to Appellant.
BETH WHITMORE
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, P. J.
CARR, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
AMANDA J. POWELL, Assistant State Public Defеnder, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.