|
Notes of Decisions
State v. Smith (Slip Opinion), 2022-Ohio-274, 194 N.E.3d 297. · cites it 195× “] A finding of probable cause is a jurisdictional prerequisite under R.C. 2152.12 to transferring a child to adult court for prosecution of an act charged—A juvenile court may transfer a case or a matter to adult court, but the adult court’s jurisdiction is limited to the acts…”
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. · cites it 202× “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
State v. Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, 217 N.E.3d 745. · cites it 50× “The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; the majority creates an outcome {¶ 60} There are two problems with the majority’s analysis. First, the majority is wrong about the evidence and the law.”
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8278, 83 N.E.3d 862. · cites it 30× “{¶ 5} The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, rejecting Aalim’s challenges to the mandatory-transfer statutes. Rejecting Aalim’s due-process argument, the court of appeals relied on a previous decision to hold that the mandatory-transfer scheme…”
Smith v. May (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-61, 148 N.E.3d 542. · cites it 38× “In general terms, if a child appears to be eligible for mandatory transfer, the juvenile court must conduct a hearing to determine whether he meets the eligibility criteria and whether there is probable cause to believe that he committed the act charged.”
State v. Morgan (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-7565, 103 N.E.3d 784. · cites it 12× “The failure to appoint a GAL is particularly troublesome in the amenability-hearing context, in which the juvenile-court judge must investigate the child’s social history, education, family situation, “and any other factor bearing on whether the child is amenable to juvenile…”
State v. Mays, 2014-Ohio-3815. · cites it 36× “After a joint hearing for appellant and Beauregard on January 8, 2013, the juvenile court relinquished jurisdiction and transferred the case to the general division pursuant to R.C. 2152.12. {¶12} On February 19, 2013, appellant was indicted and charged in Cuyahoga C.”
State v. Brookshire, 2014-Ohio-1971. · cites it 45× “10 and R.C. 2152.12. For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.”
State v. Reeder, 2016-Ohio-212, 57 N.E.3d 458. · cites it 36× “DISCUSSION {¶ 14} As relevant in this case, R.C. 2152.12 describes the criteria for deciding to bindover a child for trial in a general division adult criminal felony court: (B) [A]fter a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child for committing an act…”
State v. Marshall, 2016-Ohio-3184. · cites it 24× “See R.C. 2152.12; State v. McKinney, 2015-Ohio-4398 , 46 N.”
State v. Cunningham, 2022-Ohio-3497. · cites it 33× “{¶ 16} Because Cunningham’s transfer to the trial court was discretionary under R.C. 2152.12, the trial court ordered the required evaluations and amenability hearing before determining whether to transfer jurisdiction of Cunningham’s case.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(6): 1 case
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(A): 73 cases
State v. Smith (Slip Opinion), 2022-Ohio-274, 194 N.E.3d 297. “] A finding of probable cause is a jurisdictional prerequisite under R.C. 2152.12 to transferring a child to adult court for prosecution of an act charged—A juvenile court may transfer a case or a matter to adult court, but the adult court’s jurisdiction is limited to the acts…”
Smith v. May (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-61, 148 N.E.3d 542. “In general terms, if a child appears to be eligible for mandatory transfer, the juvenile court must conduct a hearing to determine whether he meets the eligibility criteria and whether there is probable cause to believe that he committed the act charged.”
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8278, 83 N.E.3d 862. “{¶ 5} The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, rejecting Aalim’s challenges to the mandatory-transfer statutes. Rejecting Aalim’s due-process argument, the court of appeals relied on a previous decision to hold that the mandatory-transfer scheme…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(A)(1): 13 cases
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8278, 83 N.E.3d 862. “{¶ 5} The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, rejecting Aalim’s challenges to the mandatory-transfer statutes. Rejecting Aalim’s due-process argument, the court of appeals relied on a previous decision to hold that the mandatory-transfer scheme…”
Smith v. May (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-61, 148 N.E.3d 542. “In general terms, if a child appears to be eligible for mandatory transfer, the juvenile court must conduct a hearing to determine whether he meets the eligibility criteria and whether there is probable cause to believe that he committed the act charged.”
In Re A.J.S., 877 N.E.2d 997 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2007).
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(A)(1)(B): 1 case
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(A)(1)(a): 33 cases
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(A)(1)(a)(i): 30 cases
State v. Smith (Slip Opinion), 2022-Ohio-274, 194 N.E.3d 297. “] A finding of probable cause is a jurisdictional prerequisite under R.C. 2152.12 to transferring a child to adult court for prosecution of an act charged—A juvenile court may transfer a case or a matter to adult court, but the adult court’s jurisdiction is limited to the acts…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(A)(1)(a)(ii): 4 cases
State v. Smith (Slip Opinion), 2022-Ohio-274, 194 N.E.3d 297. “] A finding of probable cause is a jurisdictional prerequisite under R.C. 2152.12 to transferring a child to adult court for prosecution of an act charged—A juvenile court may transfer a case or a matter to adult court, but the adult court’s jurisdiction is limited to the acts…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(A)(1)(b): 20 cases
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8278, 83 N.E.3d 862. “{¶ 5} The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, rejecting Aalim’s challenges to the mandatory-transfer statutes. Rejecting Aalim’s due-process argument, the court of appeals relied on a previous decision to hold that the mandatory-transfer scheme…”
State v. Mays, 2014-Ohio-3815. “After a joint hearing for appellant and Beauregard on January 8, 2013, the juvenile court relinquished jurisdiction and transferred the case to the general division pursuant to R.C. 2152.12. {¶12} On February 19, 2013, appellant was indicted and charged in Cuyahoga C.”
State v. Brookshire, 2014-Ohio-1971. “10 and R.C. 2152.12. For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(A)(1)(b)(2): 2 cases
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(A)(1)(b)(i): 3 cases
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(A)(1)(b)(ii): 24 cases
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8278, 83 N.E.3d 862. “{¶ 5} The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, rejecting Aalim’s challenges to the mandatory-transfer statutes. Rejecting Aalim’s due-process argument, the court of appeals relied on a previous decision to hold that the mandatory-transfer scheme…”
State v. Smith (Slip Opinion), 2022-Ohio-274, 194 N.E.3d 297. “] A finding of probable cause is a jurisdictional prerequisite under R.C. 2152.12 to transferring a child to adult court for prosecution of an act charged—A juvenile court may transfer a case or a matter to adult court, but the adult court’s jurisdiction is limited to the acts…”
State v. Mays, 2014-Ohio-3815. “After a joint hearing for appellant and Beauregard on January 8, 2013, the juvenile court relinquished jurisdiction and transferred the case to the general division pursuant to R.C. 2152.12. {¶12} On February 19, 2013, appellant was indicted and charged in Cuyahoga C.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(A)(2): 2 cases
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(A)(2)(b): 1 case
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(A)(4): 1 case
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(A)(l)(a)(i): 1 case
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(A)(l)(b): 1 case
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(A)(l)(b)(ii): 4 cases
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8278, 83 N.E.3d 862. “{¶ 5} The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, rejecting Aalim’s challenges to the mandatory-transfer statutes. Rejecting Aalim’s due-process argument, the court of appeals relied on a previous decision to hold that the mandatory-transfer scheme…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(B): 148 cases
State v. Smith (Slip Opinion), 2022-Ohio-274, 194 N.E.3d 297. “] A finding of probable cause is a jurisdictional prerequisite under R.C. 2152.12 to transferring a child to adult court for prosecution of an act charged—A juvenile court may transfer a case or a matter to adult court, but the adult court’s jurisdiction is limited to the acts…”
State v. Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, 217 N.E.3d 745. “The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; the majority creates an outcome {¶ 60} There are two problems with the majority’s analysis. First, the majority is wrong about the evidence and the law.”
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8278, 83 N.E.3d 862. “{¶ 5} The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, rejecting Aalim’s challenges to the mandatory-transfer statutes. Rejecting Aalim’s due-process argument, the court of appeals relied on a previous decision to hold that the mandatory-transfer scheme…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(B)(1): 30 cases
State v. Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, 217 N.E.3d 745. “The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; the majority creates an outcome {¶ 60} There are two problems with the majority’s analysis. First, the majority is wrong about the evidence and the law.”
State v. Marshall, 2016-Ohio-3184. “See R.C. 2152.12; State v. McKinney, 2015-Ohio-4398 , 46 N.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(B)(2): 14 cases
State v. Smith (Slip Opinion), 2022-Ohio-274, 194 N.E.3d 297. “] A finding of probable cause is a jurisdictional prerequisite under R.C. 2152.12 to transferring a child to adult court for prosecution of an act charged—A juvenile court may transfer a case or a matter to adult court, but the adult court’s jurisdiction is limited to the acts…”
State v. Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, 217 N.E.3d 745. “The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; the majority creates an outcome {¶ 60} There are two problems with the majority’s analysis. First, the majority is wrong about the evidence and the law.”
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(B)(3): 76 cases
State v. Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, 217 N.E.3d 745. “The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; the majority creates an outcome {¶ 60} There are two problems with the majority’s analysis. First, the majority is wrong about the evidence and the law.”
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(BB): 1 case
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(C): 66 cases
State v. Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, 217 N.E.3d 745. “The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; the majority creates an outcome {¶ 60} There are two problems with the majority’s analysis. First, the majority is wrong about the evidence and the law.”
State v. Morgan (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-7565, 103 N.E.3d 784. “The failure to appoint a GAL is particularly troublesome in the amenability-hearing context, in which the juvenile-court judge must investigate the child’s social history, education, family situation, “and any other factor bearing on whether the child is amenable to juvenile…”
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8278, 83 N.E.3d 862. “{¶ 5} The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, rejecting Aalim’s challenges to the mandatory-transfer statutes. Rejecting Aalim’s due-process argument, the court of appeals relied on a previous decision to hold that the mandatory-transfer scheme…”
State v. Smith (Slip Opinion), 2022-Ohio-274, 194 N.E.3d 297. “] A finding of probable cause is a jurisdictional prerequisite under R.C. 2152.12 to transferring a child to adult court for prosecution of an act charged—A juvenile court may transfer a case or a matter to adult court, but the adult court’s jurisdiction is limited to the acts…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(D): 101 cases
State v. Morgan (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-7565, 103 N.E.3d 784. “The failure to appoint a GAL is particularly troublesome in the amenability-hearing context, in which the juvenile-court judge must investigate the child’s social history, education, family situation, “and any other factor bearing on whether the child is amenable to juvenile…”
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8278, 83 N.E.3d 862. “{¶ 5} The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, rejecting Aalim’s challenges to the mandatory-transfer statutes. Rejecting Aalim’s due-process argument, the court of appeals relied on a previous decision to hold that the mandatory-transfer scheme…”
State v. Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, 217 N.E.3d 745. “The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; the majority creates an outcome {¶ 60} There are two problems with the majority’s analysis. First, the majority is wrong about the evidence and the law.”
State v. Cunningham, 2022-Ohio-3497. “{¶ 16} Because Cunningham’s transfer to the trial court was discretionary under R.C. 2152.12, the trial court ordered the required evaluations and amenability hearing before determining whether to transfer jurisdiction of Cunningham’s case.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(D)(1): 30 cases
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
State v. Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, 217 N.E.3d 745. “The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; the majority creates an outcome {¶ 60} There are two problems with the majority’s analysis. First, the majority is wrong about the evidence and the law.”
State v. Reeder, 2016-Ohio-212, 57 N.E.3d 458. “DISCUSSION {¶ 14} As relevant in this case, R.C. 2152.12 describes the criteria for deciding to bindover a child for trial in a general division adult criminal felony court: (B) [A]fter a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child for committing an act…”
State v. Marshall, 2016-Ohio-3184. “See R.C. 2152.12; State v. McKinney, 2015-Ohio-4398 , 46 N.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(D)(1)(7): 1 case
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(D)(2): 5 cases
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
State v. Reeder, 2016-Ohio-212, 57 N.E.3d 458. “DISCUSSION {¶ 14} As relevant in this case, R.C. 2152.12 describes the criteria for deciding to bindover a child for trial in a general division adult criminal felony court: (B) [A]fter a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child for committing an act…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(D)(3): 10 cases
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
State v. Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, 217 N.E.3d 745. “The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; the majority creates an outcome {¶ 60} There are two problems with the majority’s analysis. First, the majority is wrong about the evidence and the law.”
State v. Reeder, 2016-Ohio-212, 57 N.E.3d 458. “DISCUSSION {¶ 14} As relevant in this case, R.C. 2152.12 describes the criteria for deciding to bindover a child for trial in a general division adult criminal felony court: (B) [A]fter a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child for committing an act…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(D)(4): 11 cases
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
State v. Marshall, 2016-Ohio-3184. “See R.C. 2152.12; State v. McKinney, 2015-Ohio-4398 , 46 N.”
State v. Reeder, 2016-Ohio-212, 57 N.E.3d 458. “DISCUSSION {¶ 14} As relevant in this case, R.C. 2152.12 describes the criteria for deciding to bindover a child for trial in a general division adult criminal felony court: (B) [A]fter a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child for committing an act…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(D)(5): 14 cases
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
State v. Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, 217 N.E.3d 745. “The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; the majority creates an outcome {¶ 60} There are two problems with the majority’s analysis. First, the majority is wrong about the evidence and the law.”
State v. Reeder, 2016-Ohio-212, 57 N.E.3d 458. “DISCUSSION {¶ 14} As relevant in this case, R.C. 2152.12 describes the criteria for deciding to bindover a child for trial in a general division adult criminal felony court: (B) [A]fter a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child for committing an act…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(D)(6): 15 cases
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
State v. Reeder, 2016-Ohio-212, 57 N.E.3d 458. “DISCUSSION {¶ 14} As relevant in this case, R.C. 2152.12 describes the criteria for deciding to bindover a child for trial in a general division adult criminal felony court: (B) [A]fter a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child for committing an act…”
State v. Marshall, 2016-Ohio-3184. “See R.C. 2152.12; State v. McKinney, 2015-Ohio-4398 , 46 N.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(D)(7): 17 cases
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
State v. Reeder, 2016-Ohio-212, 57 N.E.3d 458. “DISCUSSION {¶ 14} As relevant in this case, R.C. 2152.12 describes the criteria for deciding to bindover a child for trial in a general division adult criminal felony court: (B) [A]fter a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child for committing an act…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(D)(8): 18 cases
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
State v. Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, 217 N.E.3d 745. “The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; the majority creates an outcome {¶ 60} There are two problems with the majority’s analysis. First, the majority is wrong about the evidence and the law.”
State v. Reeder, 2016-Ohio-212, 57 N.E.3d 458. “DISCUSSION {¶ 14} As relevant in this case, R.C. 2152.12 describes the criteria for deciding to bindover a child for trial in a general division adult criminal felony court: (B) [A]fter a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child for committing an act…”
State v. Marshall, 2016-Ohio-3184. “See R.C. 2152.12; State v. McKinney, 2015-Ohio-4398 , 46 N.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(D)(9): 17 cases
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
State v. Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, 217 N.E.3d 745. “The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; the majority creates an outcome {¶ 60} There are two problems with the majority’s analysis. First, the majority is wrong about the evidence and the law.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(D)(E): 1 case
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(E): 82 cases
State v. Morgan (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-7565, 103 N.E.3d 784. “The failure to appoint a GAL is particularly troublesome in the amenability-hearing context, in which the juvenile-court judge must investigate the child’s social history, education, family situation, “and any other factor bearing on whether the child is amenable to juvenile…”
State v. Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, 217 N.E.3d 745. “The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; the majority creates an outcome {¶ 60} There are two problems with the majority’s analysis. First, the majority is wrong about the evidence and the law.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(E)(1): 12 cases
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
State v. Reeder, 2016-Ohio-212, 57 N.E.3d 458. “DISCUSSION {¶ 14} As relevant in this case, R.C. 2152.12 describes the criteria for deciding to bindover a child for trial in a general division adult criminal felony court: (B) [A]fter a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child for committing an act…”
State v. Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, 217 N.E.3d 745. “The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; the majority creates an outcome {¶ 60} There are two problems with the majority’s analysis. First, the majority is wrong about the evidence and the law.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(E)(2): 6 cases
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
State v. Reeder, 2016-Ohio-212, 57 N.E.3d 458. “DISCUSSION {¶ 14} As relevant in this case, R.C. 2152.12 describes the criteria for deciding to bindover a child for trial in a general division adult criminal felony court: (B) [A]fter a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child for committing an act…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(E)(3): 12 cases
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
State v. Marshall, 2016-Ohio-3184. “See R.C. 2152.12; State v. McKinney, 2015-Ohio-4398 , 46 N.”
State v. Reeder, 2016-Ohio-212, 57 N.E.3d 458. “DISCUSSION {¶ 14} As relevant in this case, R.C. 2152.12 describes the criteria for deciding to bindover a child for trial in a general division adult criminal felony court: (B) [A]fter a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child for committing an act…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(E)(4): 9 cases
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
State v. Reeder, 2016-Ohio-212, 57 N.E.3d 458. “DISCUSSION {¶ 14} As relevant in this case, R.C. 2152.12 describes the criteria for deciding to bindover a child for trial in a general division adult criminal felony court: (B) [A]fter a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child for committing an act…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(E)(5): 10 cases
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
State v. Reeder, 2016-Ohio-212, 57 N.E.3d 458. “DISCUSSION {¶ 14} As relevant in this case, R.C. 2152.12 describes the criteria for deciding to bindover a child for trial in a general division adult criminal felony court: (B) [A]fter a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child for committing an act…”
State v. Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, 217 N.E.3d 745. “The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; the majority creates an outcome {¶ 60} There are two problems with the majority’s analysis. First, the majority is wrong about the evidence and the law.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(E)(6): 15 cases
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
State v. Marshall, 2016-Ohio-3184. “See R.C. 2152.12; State v. McKinney, 2015-Ohio-4398 , 46 N.”
State v. Reeder, 2016-Ohio-212, 57 N.E.3d 458. “DISCUSSION {¶ 14} As relevant in this case, R.C. 2152.12 describes the criteria for deciding to bindover a child for trial in a general division adult criminal felony court: (B) [A]fter a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child for committing an act…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(E)(7): 14 cases
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
State v. Reeder, 2016-Ohio-212, 57 N.E.3d 458. “DISCUSSION {¶ 14} As relevant in this case, R.C. 2152.12 describes the criteria for deciding to bindover a child for trial in a general division adult criminal felony court: (B) [A]fter a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child for committing an act…”
State v. Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, 217 N.E.3d 745. “The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; the majority creates an outcome {¶ 60} There are two problems with the majority’s analysis. First, the majority is wrong about the evidence and the law.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(E)(8): 13 cases
State v. J.L.S., 2019-Ohio-4173. “Applicable Law {¶ 22} R.C. 2152.12 governs the transfer of a juvenile from the juvenile court to the trial court to be tried as an adult.”
State v. Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-4276, 217 N.E.3d 745. “The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; the majority creates an outcome {¶ 60} There are two problems with the majority’s analysis. First, the majority is wrong about the evidence and the law.”
State v. Reeder, 2016-Ohio-212, 57 N.E.3d 458. “DISCUSSION {¶ 14} As relevant in this case, R.C. 2152.12 describes the criteria for deciding to bindover a child for trial in a general division adult criminal felony court: (B) [A]fter a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child for committing an act…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(F): 10 cases
State v. Smith (Slip Opinion), 2022-Ohio-274, 194 N.E.3d 297. “] A finding of probable cause is a jurisdictional prerequisite under R.C. 2152.12 to transferring a child to adult court for prosecution of an act charged—A juvenile court may transfer a case or a matter to adult court, but the adult court’s jurisdiction is limited to the acts…”
State v. Brookshire, 2014-Ohio-1971. “10 and R.C. 2152.12. For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.”
State v. Mays, 2014-Ohio-3815. “After a joint hearing for appellant and Beauregard on January 8, 2013, the juvenile court relinquished jurisdiction and transferred the case to the general division pursuant to R.C. 2152.12. {¶12} On February 19, 2013, appellant was indicted and charged in Cuyahoga C.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(F)(1): 2 cases
State v. Smith (Slip Opinion), 2022-Ohio-274, 194 N.E.3d 297. “] A finding of probable cause is a jurisdictional prerequisite under R.C. 2152.12 to transferring a child to adult court for prosecution of an act charged—A juvenile court may transfer a case or a matter to adult court, but the adult court’s jurisdiction is limited to the acts…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(F)(2): 7 cases
State v. Smith (Slip Opinion), 2022-Ohio-274, 194 N.E.3d 297. “] A finding of probable cause is a jurisdictional prerequisite under R.C. 2152.12 to transferring a child to adult court for prosecution of an act charged—A juvenile court may transfer a case or a matter to adult court, but the adult court’s jurisdiction is limited to the acts…”
State v. Mays, 2014-Ohio-3815. “After a joint hearing for appellant and Beauregard on January 8, 2013, the juvenile court relinquished jurisdiction and transferred the case to the general division pursuant to R.C. 2152.12. {¶12} On February 19, 2013, appellant was indicted and charged in Cuyahoga C.”
State v. Brookshire, 2014-Ohio-1971. “10 and R.C. 2152.12. For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(F)(4): 1 case
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(G): 12 cases
Smith v. May (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-61, 148 N.E.3d 542. “In general terms, if a child appears to be eligible for mandatory transfer, the juvenile court must conduct a hearing to determine whether he meets the eligibility criteria and whether there is probable cause to believe that he committed the act charged.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(H): 10 cases
Smith v. May (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-61, 148 N.E.3d 542. “In general terms, if a child appears to be eligible for mandatory transfer, the juvenile court must conduct a hearing to determine whether he meets the eligibility criteria and whether there is probable cause to believe that he committed the act charged.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(I): 41 cases
State v. Smith (Slip Opinion), 2022-Ohio-274, 194 N.E.3d 297. “] A finding of probable cause is a jurisdictional prerequisite under R.C. 2152.12 to transferring a child to adult court for prosecution of an act charged—A juvenile court may transfer a case or a matter to adult court, but the adult court’s jurisdiction is limited to the acts…”
State v. Brookshire, 2014-Ohio-1971. “10 and R.C. 2152.12. For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(I)(2): 1 case
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(J): 10 cases
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(a)(1)(b): 1 case
Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.12(b): 2 cases
Forrester, No. 5:25-cv-00710 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 22, 2025).
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.
|