State v. Walker, Unpublished Decision (9-28-1999)

CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 28, 1999
DocketNo. 99 CA 2.
StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Walker, Unpublished Decision (9-28-1999) (State v. Walker, Unpublished Decision (9-28-1999)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Walker, Unpublished Decision (9-28-1999), (Ohio Ct. App. 1999).

Opinions

OPINION
Appellant Ross Walker appeals the decision of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on the basis that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him on two counts of felonious assault. The following facts give rise to this appeal. During the afternoon hours of June 28, 1998, appellant, his brother Randy Walker, Gary Walker and Daniel Seberig traveled to Delaware County to visit Jerry Walker. While visiting at Jerry Walker's apartment complex, Randy Walker, Gary Walker and Daniel Seberig began fighting with Sean Moore and Jason Bravard. During the fight, appellant pulled out a gun and fired five shots, hitting Sean Moore in the leg with two of the shots. Appellant was seventeen years old at the time of this offense. On June 29, 1998, the state filed five separate complaints in juvenile court charging appellant with attempted murder with a gun specification, carrying a concealed weapon, felonious assault with a gun specification, felonious assault and possession of marijuana. The state filed a motion to transfer the case from the juvenile division to the general division. The trial court conducted a hearing on appellant's motion on August 5, 1998. On August 6, 1998, the juvenile court granted the state's motion and transferred jurisdiction to the general division. On August 20, 1998, the Delaware County Grand Jury indicted appellant on one count of attempted murder and two counts of felonious assault. Each count contained a gun specification. Appellant's trial commenced on October 27, 1999. Following deliberations, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty as to the count of attempted murder with a gun specification and guilty verdicts as to the two counts of felonious assault with gun specifications. On November 18, 1998, appellant filed a motion requesting the juvenile court transfer the charges of felonious assault with gun specifications back to the juvenile court. The trial court denied appellant's motion on December 8, 1998. The trial court sentenced appellant accordingly on December 16, 1998. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and sets forth the following assignment of error for our consideration:

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RETURN THE MATTER TO JUVENILE COURT AS THE TRIAL COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO PROCEED.

I
In support of his sole assignment of error, appellant maintains that after the jury found him not guilty of attempted murder with a gun specification, the trial court should have returned the two counts of felonious assault to the juvenile court because the trial court was without jurisdiction to proceed. We do not agree. Appellant argues the trial court improperly transferred the charges of felonious assault under the revised version of R.C.2151.26. The revised version of R.C. 2151.26(A) creates two classifications of offenses: Category One and Category Two. Category One offenses include: aggravated murder or murder and attempted aggravated murder or murder. Category Two offenses include: voluntary manslaughter, kidnaping, rape, aggravated arson, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, involuntary manslaughter (where the death is a proximate result of the offender's committing or attempting to commit a felony) and felonious sexual penetration. R.C. 2151.26(B) addresses the mandatory transfer procedure. A child must be transferred to the criminal court if the child was fourteen years old or older at the time of the offense, probable cause exists and one or more of the following applies: 1. A prior case was transferred to the criminal court and the child pleaded guilty to or was convicted of a felony in that case.

2. The child is domiciled in another state and, if the offense had been committed in that state, the child would be subject to criminal prosecution without the need for a transfer of jurisdiction from that state's juvenile court.

3. The child is charged with a Category One offense and either or both of the following apply: a. The child was sixteen years old or older at the time of the offense; or b. The child was previously adjudged delinquent for committing an act that is a Category One or Category Two offense and was committed to the Department of Youth Services upon the basis of that adjudication.

4. The child is charged with a Category Two offense, other than kidnaping, and was sixteen years old or older at the time of the offense and either or both of the following apply:

a. The child was previously adjudged delinquent for committing an act that is a Category One or Category Two offense and was committed to the Department of Youth Services upon the basis of that adjudication. b. The child is alleged to have had a firearm on his person or under his control during the commission of the offense and displayed, brandished, indicated possession of, or used the firearm to facilitate commission of the offense.

R.C. 2151.26(C) sets forth the procedure for discretionary transfer. This statute reduced the age of discretionary transfer from fifteen years old to fourteen years old. In determining whether to transfer a child pursuant to the discretionary transfer provisions, the juvenile court must consider the following factors in favor of transfer: 1. Child was 14 years old or older at the time of the offense.

2. There is probable cause to believe that the child committed the offense.

3. After an investigation, including a mental examination, and after consideration of all relevant information and factors, there are reasonable grounds to believe that both of the following apply:

a) The child is not amenable to care or rehabilitation in any facility designed for the care, supervision, and rehabilitation of delinquent children. b) Safety of the community requires the child be placed under legal restraint, including, if necessary, for the period extending beyond the child's majority.

In addition to the above statute, Juv.R. 30 also applies to discretionary transfers and establishes a two-step hearing procedure for discretionary transfers. Under Juv.R. 30(A), a preliminary hearing is held to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the child has committed a felony. Under Juv.R. 30(C), if the court finds probable cause, the court must conduct a second hearing, after a full investigation is completed, to determine whether jurisdiction should be transferred to the criminal court. This second hearing focuses on the amenability of the child to rehabilitation in the juvenile court system. Before a child may be transferred, the court must find there are reasonable grounds to believe that: (1) the child is not amenable to care or rehabilitation or further care or rehabilitation in any facility for delinquent children and the safety of the community may require legal restraint for a period extending beyond the child's majority. R.C. 2151.26(C)(1)(c)(I),(ii). Further, R.C.2151.26(C)(2) requires the trial court to consider the following five factors in favor of transfer: 1. A victim was five years old or younger, regardless of whether the child knew the age of the victim.

2. A victim sustained physical harm during the commission of or otherwise as a result of the offense.

3. The child is alleged to have had a firearm on his person or under his control during the commission of the offense and displayed, brandished, indicated possession of, or used the firearm to facilitate commission of the offense, other than a violation of R.C. 2923.12, carrying a concealed weapon.

4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Klingenberger
149 N.E. 395 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1925)
State v. Adams
431 N.E.2d 326 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1982)
State ex rel. Duganitz v. Court of Common Pleas
432 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1982)
State v. Wilson
652 N.E.2d 196 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Walker, Unpublished Decision (9-28-1999), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-walker-unpublished-decision-9-28-1999-ohioctapp-1999.