(A) A child who is alleged to be a delinquent child is eligible for mandatory transfer and the child's case shall be transferred as provided in section 2152.12 of the Revised Code in any of the following circumstances:
(1) The child is charged with a category one offense and either of the following apply:
(a) The child was sixteen years of age or older at the time of the act charged.
(b) The child was fourteen or fifteen years of age at the time of the act charged and previously was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing an act that is a category one or category two offense and was committed to the legal custody of the department of youth services upon the basis of that adjudication.
(2) The child is charged with a category two offense, other than a violation of section 2905.01 of the Revised Code, the child was sixteen years of age or older at the time of the commission of the act charged, and either or both of the following apply:
(a) The child previously was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing an act that is a category one or a category two offense and was committed to the legal custody of the department of youth services on the basis of that adjudication.
(b) The child is alleged to have had a firearm on or about the child's person or under the child's control while committing the act charged and to have displayed the firearm, brandished the firearm, indicated possession of the firearm, or used the firearm to facilitate the commission of the act charged.
(3) Division (A)(2) of section 2152.12 of the Revised Code applies.
(B) Unless the child is subject to mandatory transfer, if a child is fourteen years of age or older at the time of the act charged and if the child is charged with an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, the child is eligible for discretionary transfer, and for transfer of the child's case, to the appropriate court for criminal prosecution. In determining whether to transfer the child for criminal prosecution, the juvenile court shall follow the procedures in section 2152.12 of the Revised Code. If the court does not transfer the child and if the court adjudicates the child to be a delinquent child for the act charged, the court shall issue an order of disposition in accordance with section 2152.11 of the Revised Code.
Last updated February 13, 2023 at 4:06 PM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 190
cases (72 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-2956, 150 Ohio 8.
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-2956, 150 Ohio 8. · cites it 30ד{¶ 13} R.C. 2152.10(A) sets forth which juvenile cases are subject to mandatory bindover and provides: 6 January Term, 2017 (A) A child who is alleged to be a delinquent child is eligible for mandatory transfer and shall be transferred as provided in section 2152.”
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8278, 83 N.E.3d 862. · cites it 35ד16 January Term, 2016 {¶ 32} We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeals and remand the cause to the juvenile court for an amenability hearing pursuant to R.C. 2152.10 and 2152.12. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.”
State v. Smith (Slip Opinion), 2022-Ohio-274, 194 N.E.3d 297. · cites it 30דpursuant to R.C. 2152.10 and 2152.12 and Juv.R. 30. The two women and three police officers testified.”
State v. Quarterman (Slip Opinion), 2014-Ohio-4034, 19 N.E.3d 900. · cites it 6דR.C. 2152.10(A)(2)(b). The court therefore relinquished jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the general division of the common pleas court pursuant to R.”
State v. Mays, 2014-Ohio-3815. · cites it 13ד, citing R.C. 2152.10 and 2152.12. There are two types of transfers under Ohio’s juvenile justice system — mandatory and discretionary.”
State v. Brookshire, 2014-Ohio-1971. · cites it 15ד2 {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, LV Lavell Brookshire, a juvenile, appeals from his conviction in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas for aggravated robbery and kidnapping after the matter was transferred from juvenile court pursuant to R.C. 2152.10 and R.C. 2152.12. For…”
State v. Carter, 2017-Ohio-7501, 96 N.E.3d 1046. · cites it 4דUpon finding the mandatory transfer provisions in R.C. 2152.10(A) and 2152.12(A) unconstitutional, the Court severed those provisions.”
State v. Ferguson, 2017-Ohio-7930, 98 N.E.3d 987. · cites it 8דTransfer from Juvenile Court {¶ 24} In his fifth assignment of error, Ferguson claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that Ferguson was not amenable to treatment in the juvenile system following an amenability hearing on the felonious assault charge.”
State v. Starling, 2019-Ohio-1478. · cites it 6ד{¶ 5} Once Starling’s case was transferred back to juvenile court, the juvenile court reaffirmed its probable cause finding and scheduled the matter for an amenability hearing.”
State v. Bradford, 2014-Ohio-904. · cites it 18ד10(A)(2)(b) states that a child who is alleged to be a delinquent child is eligible for mandatory bind-over to the general division if (1) the child is charged with a category two offense other than kidnapping, (2) the child is Stark County, Case No.”
State v. Moore (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8288, 76 N.E.3d 1127. · cites it 2דR.C. 2152.10. Therefore, it is the General Assembly that must consider relevant factors, such as the growing body of science and pronouncements by the United States Supreme Court, and promulgate appropriate sentencing guidelines for those juveniles whom the General Assembly has…”
In re M.P., 2010-Ohio-599, 923 N.E.2d 584. · cites it 3דR.C. 2152.10 and 2152.12. When the state requests a mandatory bindover, the juvenile court determines whether the child is eligible for mandatory bindover according to the child’s age, the nature of the act, and other circumstances, and whether probable cause exists to believe…”
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-2956, 150 Ohio 8. “{¶ 13} R.C. 2152.10(A) sets forth which juvenile cases are subject to mandatory bindover and provides: 6 January Term, 2017 (A) A child who is alleged to be a delinquent child is eligible for mandatory transfer and shall be transferred as provided in section 2152.”
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8278, 83 N.E.3d 862. “16 January Term, 2016 {¶ 32} We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeals and remand the cause to the juvenile court for an amenability hearing pursuant to R.C. 2152.10 and 2152.12. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.”
State v. Starling, 2019-Ohio-1478. “{¶ 5} Once Starling’s case was transferred back to juvenile court, the juvenile court reaffirmed its probable cause finding and scheduled the matter for an amenability hearing.”
State v. Carter, 2017-Ohio-7501, 96 N.E.3d 1046. “Upon finding the mandatory transfer provisions in R.C. 2152.10(A) and 2152.12(A) unconstitutional, the Court severed those provisions.”
State v. Starling, 2019-Ohio-1478. “{¶ 5} Once Starling’s case was transferred back to juvenile court, the juvenile court reaffirmed its probable cause finding and scheduled the matter for an amenability hearing.”
State v. Ferguson, 2017-Ohio-7930, 98 N.E.3d 987. “Transfer from Juvenile Court {¶ 24} In his fifth assignment of error, Ferguson claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that Ferguson was not amenable to treatment in the juvenile system following an amenability hearing on the felonious assault charge.”
State v. Brookshire, 2014-Ohio-1971. “2 {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, LV Lavell Brookshire, a juvenile, appeals from his conviction in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas for aggravated robbery and kidnapping after the matter was transferred from juvenile court pursuant to R.C. 2152.10 and R.C. 2152.12. For…”
State v. Bradford, 2014-Ohio-904. “10(A)(2)(b) states that a child who is alleged to be a delinquent child is eligible for mandatory bind-over to the general division if (1) the child is charged with a category two offense other than kidnapping, (2) the child is Stark County, Case No.”
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-2956, 150 Ohio 8. “{¶ 13} R.C. 2152.10(A) sets forth which juvenile cases are subject to mandatory bindover and provides: 6 January Term, 2017 (A) A child who is alleged to be a delinquent child is eligible for mandatory transfer and shall be transferred as provided in section 2152.”
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8278, 83 N.E.3d 862. “16 January Term, 2016 {¶ 32} We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeals and remand the cause to the juvenile court for an amenability hearing pursuant to R.C. 2152.10 and 2152.12. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.”
State v. Quarterman (Slip Opinion), 2014-Ohio-4034, 19 N.E.3d 900. “R.C. 2152.10(A)(2)(b). The court therefore relinquished jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the general division of the common pleas court pursuant to R.”
State v. Smith (Slip Opinion), 2022-Ohio-274, 194 N.E.3d 297. “pursuant to R.C. 2152.10 and 2152.12 and Juv.R. 30. The two women and three police officers testified.”
State v. Mays, 2014-Ohio-3815. “, citing R.C. 2152.10 and 2152.12. There are two types of transfers under Ohio’s juvenile justice system — mandatory and discretionary.”
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8278, 83 N.E.3d 862. “16 January Term, 2016 {¶ 32} We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeals and remand the cause to the juvenile court for an amenability hearing pursuant to R.C. 2152.10 and 2152.12. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.”
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-2956, 150 Ohio 8. “{¶ 13} R.C. 2152.10(A) sets forth which juvenile cases are subject to mandatory bindover and provides: 6 January Term, 2017 (A) A child who is alleged to be a delinquent child is eligible for mandatory transfer and shall be transferred as provided in section 2152.”
State v. Carter, 2017-Ohio-7501, 96 N.E.3d 1046. “Upon finding the mandatory transfer provisions in R.C. 2152.10(A) and 2152.12(A) unconstitutional, the Court severed those provisions.”
State v. Ferguson, 2017-Ohio-7930, 98 N.E.3d 987. “Transfer from Juvenile Court {¶ 24} In his fifth assignment of error, Ferguson claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that Ferguson was not amenable to treatment in the juvenile system following an amenability hearing on the felonious assault charge.”
State v. Bradford, 2014-Ohio-904. “10(A)(2)(b) states that a child who is alleged to be a delinquent child is eligible for mandatory bind-over to the general division if (1) the child is charged with a category two offense other than kidnapping, (2) the child is Stark County, Case No.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.