State v. Bates

2024 Ohio 5831

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Bates, 2024-Ohio-5831.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-240104 TRIAL NO. B-2202287 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : OPINION DERRELL BATES, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: December 13, 2024

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and John D. Hill, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Elizabeth Miller, Ohio Public Defender, and Lauren Hammersmith, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

BERGERON, Judge.

{¶1} A tragic drive-by shooting that resulted in a teenager’s death ultimately

led to murder and felonious assault charges for another teenager—defendant-

appellant Derrell Bates. After the juvenile court found probable cause that he and his

co-defendants committed the killing, the State initiated bindover proceedings to have

Mr. Bates’ case transferred to the court of common pleas. Applying the statutory

framework established by R.C. 2152.12, the juvenile court sifted through the evidence

before ultimately concluding that Mr. Bates was not amenable to rehabilitation in the

juvenile court system. The juvenile court accordingly granted the State’s motion and

relinquished jurisdiction to the court of common pleas. After a conviction via a guilty

plea, Mr. Bates now appeals, challenging the juvenile court’s amenability

determination. Based on our abuse of discretion standard of review, however, we do

not see a basis in the record for disturbing the trial court’s decision. We accordingly

affirm its judgment.

I.

{¶2} In 2021, as police investigated potential illicit activities at a gas station

in the middle of the night, they happened upon 14-year-old Derrell Bates and

attempted to pat him down. He resisted these efforts, but officers nevertheless located

a firearm and proceeded to attempt to arrest him. At that point, Mr. Bates fled as

officers gave chase before ultimately tasing him in order to subdue him. Officers then

discovered a second handgun as they arrested him. These antics led to a series of

juvenile charges against Mr. Bates for offenses that would be carrying a concealed

weapon, resisting arrest, and the like, if committed by an adult.

{¶3} The authorities later realized that Mr. Bates was a suspect in a recent

drive-by shooting of 16-year-old G.B. a month earlier perpetrated by a group of young

2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

men riding in a stolen blue Nissan. The group targeted the boy and unleashed a

barrage of over 20 bullets at him. Evidence implicating Mr. Bates in this murder

included shell casings, the handguns recovered (connecting him to the shells used in

the shooting), and five videos that had been uploaded to social media depicting

individuals (including Mr. Bates) brandishing firearms as they rode in the stolen

Nissan shortly before the murder occurred. Based on this and other evidence, the

State charged Mr. Bates with offenses that would be murder and felonious assault if

committed by an adult, and the juvenile court found that probable cause existed.

{¶4} In light of the severity of the crimes and his age, the State initiated

bindover proceedings to transfer Mr. Bates’ case to the common pleas court in order

to try him as an adult. Under the controlling standard in R.C. 2152.12, this required

the court to evaluate his amenability to rehabilitation within the juvenile system.

Consistent with R.C. 2152.12(C), the court ordered an investigation into Mr. Bates’

social, educational, and familial histories, in connection with assessing his amenability

to juvenile rehabilitation. Dr. Nicole Leisgang conducted this psychological

examination and produced a report detailing her findings, which included an opinion

that Mr. Bates was amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile system.

{¶5} The juvenile court convened a hearing and considered the report, the

evidence tendered, and each parties’ arguments, after which it agreed to transfer

jurisdiction to the adult court. The court held that nearly all of the factors in R.C.

2152.12(D) favored transfer, whereas none of the factors in R.C. 2152.12(E), weighing

against transfer, applied.

{¶6} After the common pleas court denied a motion to remand jurisdiction

back to the juvenile court, Mr. Bates eventually entered into a guilty plea agreement

with the State, pleading guilty to involuntary manslaughter, R.C. 2903.04(A),

3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

felonious assault, R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), receiving stolen property, R.C. 2913.51(A), and

carrying concealed weapons, R.C. 2923.12(A)(2) (in exchange for dismissal of the

murder charge). Pursuant to this agreement, the court found him guilty and sentenced

him to 18-to-19-and-one-half-years in prison.

{¶7} In the aftermath of that conviction and sentence, Mr. Bates timely

appeals the juvenile court’s amenability determination, presenting a single

assignment of error.

II.

{¶8} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Bates contends that the juvenile

court abused its discretion when it transferred his case for adult prosecution in

contravention of R.C. 2152.12(B). We review a juvenile court’s amenability

determination and balancing of the various factors under an abuse of discretion

standard. State v. Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, ¶ 22. An abuse of discretion occurs

when “a court exercis[es] its judgment, in an unwarranted way, in regard to a matter

over which it has discretionary authority.” Johnson v. Abdullah, 2021-Ohio-3304, ¶

35. We first explain the governing legal standard before turning to an application to

the facts at hand.

A.

{¶9} In Nicholas, the Supreme Court of Ohio recently provided an overview

of the statutory framework for juvenile transfer motions, and ultimately clarified the

burden of proof question. Ohio’s juvenile system permits two types of jurisdictional

transfer, mandatory and discretionary. Nicholas at ¶ 3. Mandatory transfer removes

discretion from judges and requires the transfer of juveniles to adult court in certain

limited circumstances. Id.; R.C. 2152.12(A). Conversely, discretionary transfer, at

issue in this case, provides juvenile court judges with the discretion to transfer certain

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

juveniles to adult court who do not appear to be amenable to care or rehabilitation

within the juvenile system. Id.; R.C. 2152.12(B).

{¶10} The statute creates a three-pronged inquiry for the juvenile court to

undertake in evaluating a discretionary transfer: “the juvenile court may transfer the

child to adult court for prosecution if it finds (1) that the child was at least 14 years old

at the time of the charged act, (2) that there is probable cause to believe that the child

committed the charged act, and (3) that ‘[t]he child is not amenable to care or

rehabilitation within the juvenile system, and the safety of the community may require

that the child be subject to adult sanctions.’” (Citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 4; R.C.

2152.12(B)(1) through (3). Prior to its decision, pursuant to R.C. 2152.12(C), “the

juvenile court must order ‘an investigation into the child’s social history, education,

family situation, and any other factor bearing on’” the child’s amenability to juvenile

rehabilitation, including a psychological examination. Id.

{¶11} As the court decides whether to exercise its discretion to transfer to

adult court, it must balance the statutory factors weighing in favor of transfer under

R.C. 2152.12(D), against those opposing transfer delineated in R.C. 2152.12(E).

Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, at ¶ 5. These factors “generally address personal

characteristics of the juvenile, [his] history in the juvenile-court system, and the

circumstances of and the harm caused by the acts charged.” Id. The court must

indicate, on the record, the specific factors it weighed in making its amenability

determination. Id. The State bears the ultimate burden: “To find that a juvenile is not

amenable to treatment in the juvenile system, the court need only conclude that the

factors that favor transfer outweigh the factors that counsel against transfer.” Id. at ¶

29. As the Supreme Court has clarified, “[by] requiring only a simple outweighing,

[the statute] by its terms establishes a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for

5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

deciding a juvenile’s amenability.” Id.

{¶12} With that standard in mind, we turn to a consideration of the facts in

this case.

B.

{¶13} Of the three statutory criteria, only the final one—regarding amenability

to care or rehabilitation—is disputed before us now. R.C. 2152.12(B)(3). Mr. Bates

was 14 years old at the time of the charged acts and the juvenile court found probable

that he committed the offenses charged, which satisfies the first two inquiries. R.C.

2152.12(B)(1) and (2). We accordingly turn to that amenability consideration.

{¶14} The juvenile court, surveying the evidence, identified eight different

factors that militated in favor of transfer under R.C. 2152.12(D) including: (1) the

victim suffered physical harm, (2) Mr. Bates allegedly committed the act as part of a

gang or organized criminal activity,1 (3) he had a firearm during the commission of the

act charged, (4) at the time of the act charged, he was under a community control

sanction, (5) the results of any previous juvenile sanctions and programs demonstrate

that rehabilitation will not occur in the juvenile system, (6) he is emotionally and

mentally mature enough for transfer, (7) there is not sufficient time to rehabilitate him

within the juvenile system, and (8) he was uncooperative and resisted arrest against a

backdrop of chronic behavioral incidents at school. Most of these factors are not

disputed by Mr. Bates on appeal, with the exception of the ones we elaborate upon

below. On the other side of the ledger, the juvenile court found that none of the factors

under R.C. 2152.12(E) weighed against transfer.

1 Mr. Bates raises an evidentiary objection to the consideration of any gang-related evidence. We view any concern with the caliber of this evidence as, at most, harmless error for the reasons explained in this opinion.

6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

{¶15} Mr. Bates, on appeal, insists that the trial court got it wrong largely

because it disagreed with the assessment of the court-appointed expert, Dr. Leisgang,

and because he would’ve had nearly six years of time for rehabilitation in the juvenile

court system. We will unpack both of these arguments.

{¶16} In her psychological examination, Dr. Leisgang opined that Mr. Bates

was amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile system. Mr. Bates acknowledges,

as he must, that Dr. Leisgang’s opinion is not binding on the court. See State v. White,

2008-Ohio-1623, ¶ 71; see also State v. McBride, 205 N.E.3d 663, 676 (1st Dist. 2023),

citing White at ¶ 71 (holding that a juvenile court is not required to automatically

accept an expert opinion, but the court may not arbitrarily disregard it and must

provide an objective reason for doing so). But he is quick to point out that her expert

analysis should’ve compelled more careful consideration from the court. We will

explore a few facets of Dr. Leisgang’s analysis.

{¶17} First, Mr. Bates points out that she opined that he suffered from a

mental illness, which should have qualified as a factor pointing against transfer under

R.C. 2152.12(E)(7) (“The child has a mental illness or intellectual disability.”). But

that’s not how we read Dr. Leisgang’s report. She opines that he has “emotional

difficulty” that seems to impede his judgment, and elaborated that he had ADHD,

“conduct disorder,” “disruptive mood” disorder, and “unspecified anxiety disorder.”

She does not opine that his emotional challenges rise to the level of a mental illness.

To be fair, the statute does not elaborate on what “mental illness” means, although the

State points us to definitions elsewhere in the Revised Code that might illuminate the

matter. See, e.g., R.C. 5101.60(N); 5119.01(A)(14); 5122.01(A). But we need not decide

today the precise answer to that question because we do not have an expert opining

that a “mental illness” actually exists. The juvenile court recognized that some of his

7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

conditions, such as ADHD, were readily treatable by medications—medications that

he declined to take. Therefore, on this record, we are not convinced that the trial court

should’ve weighed the “mental illness” factor in Mr. Bates’ favor.

{¶18} Second, Mr. Bates’ subsidiary argument essentially integrates the

ultimate conclusion from Dr. Leisgang’s opinion—that he was amenable to

rehabilitation in the juvenile system—with the length of time stretching before him at

the time of the bindover hearing. He maintains that, given nearly six years of time,

the programming available in the juvenile system, and Dr. Leisgang’s conclusion that

he could benefit and become rehabilitated in this environment, the trial court

incorrectly skewed the amenability calculus. To be sure, these are powerful points that

suggest that Mr. Bates might benefit from rehabilitative efforts in the juvenile system.

At the same time, however, Dr. Leisgang’s opinion is not unqualified—she appreciates

that he presents a “high risk” of future aberrant behavior, he understood the

wrongfulness of his actions, and he had never tried consistent treatment to address his

emotional and interpersonal difficulties (in other words, there’s no assurance that it

would work).

{¶19} We don’t see any indication that the trial court improperly discarded Dr.

Leisgang’s opinion. Rather, it considered those findings (and the time remaining for

treatment) against the broader picture. While Mr. Bates had successfully completed a

probation period in the past, the court walked through an extensive record that he had

accumulated (and the escalating nature of it), along with chronic problems of

disturbances and threats in school. He was on community control at the time of the

offense, resisted arrest, and sought to flee the officers. And the severity of the crime,

and death of the victim (R.C. 2152.12(D)(1)) clearly weighed on the court. To be sure,

almost six years presents an unusually long time to seek rehabilitation in the juvenile

8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

system. But, as the facts in this case demonstrate, the matter is far from clear-cut. The

trial judge weighed the multiple permissible considerations at issue here and filtered

them through the statutory analysis to arrive at its conclusion.

{¶20} The court pointed out that Dr. Leisgang found him to be age

appropriate, which factored into its conclusion that he had the maturity necessary to

transfer to adult court. R.C. 2152.12(D)(8). Mr. Bates resists this conclusion, insisting

that the record was devoid of such evidence. The evidence, while admittedly thin on

this point, offers some support for the trial court’s conclusion. The trial court

emphasized that he associated with older teenagers and seemed to have the maturity

to commit increasingly serious crimes. Admittedly, we have concerns regarding the

court’s conclusion here, but even if we agreed with Mr. Bates, it would not change the

ultimate outcome. We consider any potential error here harmless in light of the factors

identified and relied upon by the trial court.

{¶21} It is important to appreciate the discretion of the juvenile court here,

inherent in the very label of “discretionary transfer.” The court must keep its focus on

“whether the juvenile system can help the juvenile,” Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, at ¶

39, and juvenile courts should strive to do so, because that is part of the rationale for

why we have a juvenile justice system to begin with. The juvenile court had various

options at its disposal, including the prospect of utilizing the “Serious Youth Offender”

designation on Mr. Bates. See generally R.C. 2152.11 through 2152.19; but see

Nicholas at ¶ 38 (“A juvenile court therefore need not consider the availability of a

serious-youthful-offender disposition as a factor in an amenability determination.”).

Had the court reached different factual conclusions and balanced the factors

differently here, it is doubtful that we could have disturbed that conclusion on

discretionary review. This is certainly a tragic case and one that different judges might

9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

assess differently. But on abuse of discretion review, and considering the findings

made on the record, we simply are unable to overturn the trial court’s determination.

{¶22} Finally, Mr. Bates raises a policy-based argument that urges the court

to consider the broader problem of the ubiquity of firearms in our society. In other

words, in a country awash with guns (and in a State that seemingly wants to make it

easier to own and carry guns, see City of Cincinnati v. State, 2024-Ohio-2425 (1st

Dist.)), a juvenile should not be held to an adult standard because of his ease of

procuring a firearm. He believes that his possession of guns in this case improperly

tainted the juvenile court’s conclusions. This is an interesting issue, and there would

be much to say in a normative debate of this point. But we don’t see any improper

tipping of the scales by the trial court here, and Mr. Bates surely can’t escape the reality

that he used a firearm in a drive-by shooting to kill a teenager.

* * *

{¶23} Because we cannot hold, based on the arguments and record before us

that the juvenile court abused its discretion, we affirm its judgment and overrule Mr.

Bates’ assignment of error.

Judgment affirmed.

ZAYAS, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., concur.

Please note:

The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.