[Cite as State v. Pryor, 2018-Ohio-2985.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-170334 TRIAL NO. B-1602737 Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. : O P I N I O N.
RALPH PRYOR, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: July 27, 2018
Alex Scott Havlin, Assistant Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff- Appellee,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, Joshua A. Thompson and Julie Kahrs Nessler, Assistant Public Defenders, for Defendant-Appellant. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
DETERS, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Ralph Pryor appeals his weapons-under-
disability conviction, which resulted from the transfer of his case from juvenile court
to the common pleas court. Because we determine that his challenges to the
bindover process and to the use of a prior juvenile adjudication as the basis for his
conviction lack merit, we affirm.
{¶2} Pryor’s case originated in juvenile court with a complaint alleging that
Pryor was delinquent for committing what would have been felonious assault and
having weapons under a disability, if those offenses had been committed by an adult.
The state sought relinquishment of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction under R.C.
2152.12. After holding an amenability hearing, the juvenile court granted the state’s
motion and transferred the case to adult court. In the common pleas court, the state
dismissed the felonious-assault charges, and Pryor pleaded no contest to having
weapons while under a disability. The basis for Pryor’s disability was a prior juvenile
adjudication. The trial court sentenced Pryor to two years of community-control
sanctions.
{¶3} In Pryor’s first assignment of error, he argues that the juvenile court
failed to comply with R.C. 2152.12 and Juv.R. 30(G) in transferring his case to the
common pleas court, and that this failure also violated his due-process rights. An
unlawful bindover proceeding relates to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the
common pleas court to try the juvenile as an adult. State v. Amos, 1st Dist. Hamilton
No. C-150265, 2016-Ohio-1319, ¶ 28.
{¶4} Before transferring a case from juvenile court to adult court in a
discretionary-bindover proceeding, the juvenile court must find that the juvenile “is
2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
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.” R.C.
2152.12(B)(3). In making an amenability determination, the juvenile court must
consider whether the factors in favor of transfer as provided in R.C. 2152.12(D)
outweigh the factors against transfer as provided in R.C. 2152.12(E). Id. “The record
shall indicate the specific factors that were applicable and that the court weighed.”
Id.
{¶5} R.C. 2152.12(D) provides that the juvenile court must consider the
following relevant factors in favor of transfer, as well as any other relevant factors:
(1) The victim of the act charged suffered physical or psychological
harm, or serious economic harm, as a result of the alleged act. (2) The
physical or psychological harm suffered by the victim due to the
alleged act of the child was exacerbated because of the physical or
psychological vulnerability or the age of the victim. (3) The child’s
relationship with the victim facilitated the act charged. (4) The child
allegedly committed the act charged for hire or as a part of a gang or
other organized criminal activity. (5) The child had a firearm on or
about the child’s person or under the child's control at the time of the
act charged, the act charged is not a violation of section 2923.12 of the
Revised Code, and the child, during the commission of the act charged,
allegedly used or displayed the firearm, brandished the firearm, or
indicated that the child possessed a firearm. (6) At the time of the act
charged, the child was awaiting adjudication or disposition as a
delinquent child, was under a community control sanction, or was on
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
parole for a prior delinquent child adjudication or conviction. (7) The
results of any previous juvenile sanctions and programs indicate that
rehabilitation of the child will not occur in the juvenile system. (8) The
child is emotionally, physically, or psychologically mature enough for
the transfer. (9) There is not sufficient time to rehabilitate the child
within the juvenile system.
{¶6} R.C. 2152.12(E) provides that the juvenile court must consider the
following relevant factors against transfer, as well as any other relevant factors:
(1) The victim induced or facilitated the act charged. (2) The child
acted under provocation in allegedly committing the act charged. (3)
The child was not the principal actor in the act charged, or, at the time
of the act charged, the child was under the negative influence or
coercion of another person. (4) The child did not cause physical harm
to any person or property, or have reasonable cause to believe that
harm of that nature would occur, in allegedly committing the act
charged. (5) The child previously has not been adjudicated a
delinquent child. (6) The child is not emotionally, physically, or
psychologically mature enough for the transfer. (7) The child has a
mental illness or intellectual disability. (8) There is sufficient time to
rehabilitate the child within the juvenile system and the level of
security available in the juvenile system provides a reasonable
assurance of public safety.
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶7} R.C. 2152.12(I) states that “[u]pon the transfer of a case * * * the
juvenile court shall state the reasons for the transfer on the record[.]” Similarly,
Juv.R. 30(G) states: “The order of transfer shall state the reasons for transfer.”
{¶8} In this case, the juvenile court’s transfer order states that “after
weighing all applicable factors, that the factors in favor of transfer outweigh the
factors against transfer, as contained in the Court’s Discretionary Transfer Findings,
which are incorporated by reference herein.” The entry later states that “[t]he
reasons for the transfer were stated on the record.” The juvenile court attached to its
transfer order a checklist, which listed the factors in R.C. 2152.12(D) and (E). The
checklist was blank, except for the juvenile judge’s signature.
{¶9} According to Pryor, the juvenile court’s conclusory statement in the
transfer order that Pryor was not amenable to care or rehabilitation within the
juvenile system and that the safety of the community may require adult sanctions
violates R.C. 2152.12 and Juv.R. 30(G), because the order does not state the reasons
for transfer. See State ex rel. White v. Junkin, 80 Ohio St.3d 335, 337, 686 N.E.2d
267 (1997) (a trial court “speaks only through its journal * * *.”). Pryor further
argues that the juvenile court’s conclusory amenability determination violated his
due-process rights. See Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 560, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16
L.Ed.2d 84 (1966).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Pryor, 2018-Ohio-2985.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-170334 TRIAL NO. B-1602737 Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. : O P I N I O N.
RALPH PRYOR, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: July 27, 2018
Alex Scott Havlin, Assistant Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff- Appellee,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, Joshua A. Thompson and Julie Kahrs Nessler, Assistant Public Defenders, for Defendant-Appellant. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
DETERS, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Ralph Pryor appeals his weapons-under-
disability conviction, which resulted from the transfer of his case from juvenile court
to the common pleas court. Because we determine that his challenges to the
bindover process and to the use of a prior juvenile adjudication as the basis for his
conviction lack merit, we affirm.
{¶2} Pryor’s case originated in juvenile court with a complaint alleging that
Pryor was delinquent for committing what would have been felonious assault and
having weapons under a disability, if those offenses had been committed by an adult.
The state sought relinquishment of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction under R.C.
2152.12. After holding an amenability hearing, the juvenile court granted the state’s
motion and transferred the case to adult court. In the common pleas court, the state
dismissed the felonious-assault charges, and Pryor pleaded no contest to having
weapons while under a disability. The basis for Pryor’s disability was a prior juvenile
adjudication. The trial court sentenced Pryor to two years of community-control
sanctions.
{¶3} In Pryor’s first assignment of error, he argues that the juvenile court
failed to comply with R.C. 2152.12 and Juv.R. 30(G) in transferring his case to the
common pleas court, and that this failure also violated his due-process rights. An
unlawful bindover proceeding relates to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the
common pleas court to try the juvenile as an adult. State v. Amos, 1st Dist. Hamilton
No. C-150265, 2016-Ohio-1319, ¶ 28.
{¶4} Before transferring a case from juvenile court to adult court in a
discretionary-bindover proceeding, the juvenile court must find that the juvenile “is
2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
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.” R.C.
2152.12(B)(3). In making an amenability determination, the juvenile court must
consider whether the factors in favor of transfer as provided in R.C. 2152.12(D)
outweigh the factors against transfer as provided in R.C. 2152.12(E). Id. “The record
shall indicate the specific factors that were applicable and that the court weighed.”
Id.
{¶5} R.C. 2152.12(D) provides that the juvenile court must consider the
following relevant factors in favor of transfer, as well as any other relevant factors:
(1) The victim of the act charged suffered physical or psychological
harm, or serious economic harm, as a result of the alleged act. (2) The
physical or psychological harm suffered by the victim due to the
alleged act of the child was exacerbated because of the physical or
psychological vulnerability or the age of the victim. (3) The child’s
relationship with the victim facilitated the act charged. (4) The child
allegedly committed the act charged for hire or as a part of a gang or
other organized criminal activity. (5) The child had a firearm on or
about the child’s person or under the child's control at the time of the
act charged, the act charged is not a violation of section 2923.12 of the
Revised Code, and the child, during the commission of the act charged,
allegedly used or displayed the firearm, brandished the firearm, or
indicated that the child possessed a firearm. (6) At the time of the act
charged, the child was awaiting adjudication or disposition as a
delinquent child, was under a community control sanction, or was on
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
parole for a prior delinquent child adjudication or conviction. (7) The
results of any previous juvenile sanctions and programs indicate that
rehabilitation of the child will not occur in the juvenile system. (8) The
child is emotionally, physically, or psychologically mature enough for
the transfer. (9) There is not sufficient time to rehabilitate the child
within the juvenile system.
{¶6} R.C. 2152.12(E) provides that the juvenile court must consider the
following relevant factors against transfer, as well as any other relevant factors:
(1) The victim induced or facilitated the act charged. (2) The child
acted under provocation in allegedly committing the act charged. (3)
The child was not the principal actor in the act charged, or, at the time
of the act charged, the child was under the negative influence or
coercion of another person. (4) The child did not cause physical harm
to any person or property, or have reasonable cause to believe that
harm of that nature would occur, in allegedly committing the act
charged. (5) The child previously has not been adjudicated a
delinquent child. (6) The child is not emotionally, physically, or
psychologically mature enough for the transfer. (7) The child has a
mental illness or intellectual disability. (8) There is sufficient time to
rehabilitate the child within the juvenile system and the level of
security available in the juvenile system provides a reasonable
assurance of public safety.
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶7} R.C. 2152.12(I) states that “[u]pon the transfer of a case * * * the
juvenile court shall state the reasons for the transfer on the record[.]” Similarly,
Juv.R. 30(G) states: “The order of transfer shall state the reasons for transfer.”
{¶8} In this case, the juvenile court’s transfer order states that “after
weighing all applicable factors, that the factors in favor of transfer outweigh the
factors against transfer, as contained in the Court’s Discretionary Transfer Findings,
which are incorporated by reference herein.” The entry later states that “[t]he
reasons for the transfer were stated on the record.” The juvenile court attached to its
transfer order a checklist, which listed the factors in R.C. 2152.12(D) and (E). The
checklist was blank, except for the juvenile judge’s signature.
{¶9} According to Pryor, the juvenile court’s conclusory statement in the
transfer order that Pryor was not amenable to care or rehabilitation within the
juvenile system and that the safety of the community may require adult sanctions
violates R.C. 2152.12 and Juv.R. 30(G), because the order does not state the reasons
for transfer. See State ex rel. White v. Junkin, 80 Ohio St.3d 335, 337, 686 N.E.2d
267 (1997) (a trial court “speaks only through its journal * * *.”). Pryor further
argues that the juvenile court’s conclusory amenability determination violated his
due-process rights. See Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 560, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16
L.Ed.2d 84 (1966).
{¶10} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that former R.C. 2151.26, now R.C.
2151.12, and Juv.R. 30 do not require written findings. See State v. Douglas, 20
Ohio St.3d 34, 485 N.E.2d 711 (1985). Other appellate districts have followed
Douglas in holding that R.C. 2151.12 does not require a juvenile court to issue
written findings regarding the reasons for transfer. See State v. Erwin, 10th Dist.
5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Franklin No. 09AP-918, 2012-Ohio-776, ¶ 14; State v. Blair, 5th Dist. Stark No.
2016CA00180, 2017-Ohio-5865, ¶ 32. Here, the juvenile court orally stated its
specific reasons for transfer at the May 19, 2016 hearing. At the hearing, the juvenile
court stated that Pryor had been afforded multiple rehabilitative services through the
juvenile court as a result of prior delinquency cases, and that he had used a gun
during the commission of the acts in the complaint. See R.C. 2152.12(D)(5) and (7).
Ultimately, the juvenile court determined that Pryor should be tried in adult court
for the safety of the community, given the nature of the charges. See R.C.
2152.12(B)(3). Therefore, we determine that the juvenile court complied with the
relevant statutes in this discretionary-transfer proceeding, and the juvenile court’s
decision to relinquish jurisdiction was not an abuse of discretion. See State v.
Golphin, 81 Ohio St.3d 543, 546, 692 N.E.2d 608 (1998).
{¶11} We overrule Pryor’s first assignment of error.
{¶12} In his second assignment of error, Pryor argues that the use of his
prior juvenile adjudication as the basis for his weapons-under-disability conviction
violates due process, because juveniles are not afforded the constitutional right to a
jury trial. This court has repeatedly rejected the same argument. See State v.
Carney, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160660, 2017-Ohio-8585; State v. Barfield, 2017-
Ohio-8243, 87 N.E.3d 233 (1st Dist.), appeal allowed, 152 Ohio St.3d 1420, 2018-
Ohio-923, 93 N.E.3d 1002; State v. Carnes, 2016-Ohio-8019, 75 N.E.3d 774 (1st
Dist.), appeal allowed, 150 Ohio St.3d 1429, 2017-Ohio-7567, 81 N.E.3d 1271.
Following our precedent, we overrule Pryor’s second assignment of error.
{¶13} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
MOCK, P.J., and MILLER, J., concur.
Please note: The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.