(A) If a complaint is filed against a child alleging that the child is a delinquent child and the case is transferred pursuant to division (A)(1)(a)(i) or (A)(1)(b)(ii) of section 2152.12 of the Revised Code, the juvenile court that transferred the case shall retain jurisdiction for purposes of making disposition of the child when required under division (B) of this section.
(B) If a complaint is filed against a child alleging that the child is a delinquent child, if the case is transferred pursuant to division (A)(1)(a)(i) or (A)(1)(b)(ii) of section 2152.12 of the Revised Code, and if the child subsequently is convicted of or pleads guilty to one or more offenses in that case, the sentence to be imposed or disposition to be made of the child with respect to each of the offenses shall be determined as follows:
(1) The court in which the child is convicted of or pleads guilty to the offenses shall determine whether, had a complaint been filed in juvenile court alleging that the child was a delinquent child for committing an act that would be any of the offenses if committed by an adult, division (A) of section 2152.12 of the Revised Code would have required mandatory transfer of the case or division (B) of that section would have allowed discretionary transfer of the case. The court shall not consider the factor specified in division (B)(3) of section 2152.12 of the Revised Code in making its determination under this division.
(2) If the court in which the child is convicted of or pleads guilty to the offenses determines under division (B)(1) of this section that, had a complaint been filed in juvenile court alleging that the child was a delinquent child for committing an act that would be any of the offenses if committed by an adult, division (A) of section 2152.12 of the Revised Code would not have required mandatory transfer of the case, and division (B) of that section would not have allowed discretionary transfer of the case, the court shall transfer jurisdiction of the case back to the juvenile court that initially transferred the case, the court and all other agencies that have any record of the conviction of the child or the child's guilty plea shall expunge all of the convictions and guilty pleas and all records of them, the convictions and guilty pleas shall be considered and treated for all purposes other than as provided in this section to have never occurred, the convictions and guilty pleas shall be considered and treated for all purposes other than as provided in this section to have been delinquent child adjudications of the child, and the juvenile court shall impose one or more traditional juvenile dispositions on the child under sections 2152.19 and 2152.20 of the Revised Code for each of the offenses.
(3) If the court in which the child is convicted of or pleads guilty to the offenses determines under division (B)(1) of this section that, had a complaint been filed in juvenile court alleging that the child was a delinquent child for committing an act that would be any of the offenses if committed by an adult, division (A) of section 2152.12 of the Revised Code would not have required mandatory transfer of the case but division (B) of that section would have allowed discretionary transfer of the case, the court shall determine the sentence it believes should be imposed on the child under Chapter 2929. of the Revised Code for each of the offenses, shall impose that sentence on the child, and shall stay that sentence pending completion of the procedures specified in this division. Upon imposition and staying of the sentence, the court shall transfer jurisdiction of the case back to the juvenile court that initially transferred the case and the juvenile court shall proceed in accordance with this division. In no case may the child waive a right to a hearing of the type described in division (B)(3)(b) of this section, regarding a motion filed as described in that division by the prosecuting attorney in the case. Upon transfer of jurisdiction of the case back to the juvenile court, both of the following apply:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in division (B)(3)(b) of this section, for each of the offenses, the juvenile court shall impose a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence on the child under division (D)(1) of section 2152.13 of the Revised Code. In imposing the adult portion of the serious youthful offender dispositional sentence, the juvenile court shall consider and give preference to the sentence imposed on the child by the court in which the child was convicted of or pleaded guilty to the offense. Upon imposing a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence or traditional juvenile disposition on the child as described in this division, the juvenile court shall notify the court in which the child was convicted of or pleaded guilty to the offense, the sentence imposed on the child by that court shall terminate, the court and all other agencies that have any record of the conviction of the child or the child's guilty plea shall expunge the conviction or guilty plea and all records of it, the conviction or guilty plea shall be considered and treated for all purposes other than as provided in this section to have never occurred, and the conviction or guilty plea shall be considered and treated for all purposes other than as provided in this section to have been a delinquent child adjudication of the child.
(b) Within fourteen days after the filing of the journal entry regarding the transfer, the prosecuting attorney in the case may file a motion in the juvenile court that objects to the imposition of serious youthful offender dispositional sentences on the child for the offenses and requests that the sentences imposed on the child by the court in which the child was convicted of or pleaded guilty to the offenses be invoked. Upon the filing of a motion under this division, the juvenile court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the child is not amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system and whether the safety of the community may require that the child be subject solely to adult sanctions. If the juvenile court at the hearing finds that the child is not amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system or that the safety of the community may require that the child be subject solely to adult sanctions, the court shall grant the motion. Absent such a finding, the juvenile court shall deny the motion. In making its decision under this division, the juvenile court shall consider the factors listed in division (D) of section 2152.12 of the Revised Code as factors indicating that the motion should be granted, shall consider the factors listed in division (E) of that section as factors indicating that the motion should not be granted, and shall consider whether the applicable factors listed in division (D) of that section outweigh the applicable factors listed in division (E) of that section.
If the juvenile court grants the motion of the prosecuting attorney under this division, the juvenile court shall transfer jurisdiction of the case back to the court in which the child was convicted of or pleaded guilty to the offenses, and the sentences imposed by that court shall be invoked. If the juvenile court denies the motion of the prosecuting attorney under this section, for each of the offenses, the juvenile court shall impose a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence on the child in accordance with division (B)(3)(a) of this section.
(4) If the court in which the child is convicted of or pleads guilty to the offenses determines under division (B)(1) of this section that, had a complaint been filed in juvenile court alleging that the child was a delinquent child for committing an act that would be any of the offenses if committed by an adult, division (A) of section 2152.12 of the Revised Code would have required mandatory transfer of the case, for each of the offenses, the court shall impose sentence on the child under Chapter 2929. of the Revised Code.
Last updated March 8, 2023 at 10:58 AM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case: State v. D.B., 2017 Ohio 6952 (Ohio 2017).
State v. D.B., 2017 Ohio 6952 (Ohio 2017). · cites it 27דWe determined that these cases present a conflict. 142 Ohio St.3d 1446 , 2015-Ohio-1591 , 29 N.”
State v. Smith (Slip Opinion), 2022 Ohio 274 (Ohio 2022). · cites it 18דIn that case, which was before us as a certified conflict between judgments of the Second District Court of Appeals and the Eighth District Court of Appeals, the focus of our inquiry was the plain meaning of the reverse-transfer statute, R.C. 2152.121. D.B. at ¶ 10.…”
State v. Ferguson, 2017 Ohio 7930 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 26ד1 He *991 claims that (1) the trial court erred in using a prior juvenile adjudication to impose a mandatory prison term, (2) the trial court erred in failing to suppress statements that he made to the police (3) the trial court erred in imposing a maximum sentence, (4) the…”
State v. Grant, 2019 Ohio 3561 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 20דASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE THE CRIMINAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO SENTENCE EMMANUEL GRANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH R.C. 2152.121 * * *. {¶4} In his first assignment of error, Mr.”
State v. D.B. (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6952 (Ohio 2017). · cites it 27דANALYSIS {¶ 10} In answering the certified question, we must determine the meaning of the various provisions of R.C. 2152.121. When considering the meaning of a statute, our “primary goal * * * is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s intent in enacting the statute.”
State v. Weaver, 2019 Ohio 2477 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 12דFor the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court’s imposition of sentence, and remand the matter for the required procedure under R.C. 2152.121. I. Facts and Procedural Background {¶ 2} On January 29, 2015, two masked men accosted 14-year-old D.”
State v. Nicholson, 2022 Ohio 2037 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 8ד12(A)(1)(a)(i) and (2) abused its discretion in later determining, in a reverse bindover proceeding conducted pursuant to R.C. 2152.121, that he was not amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system.”
State v. Mays, 2014 Ohio 3815 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 7ד12(F) otherwise imposes to conduct further hearings or to make findings with respect to appellant’s eligibility to be tried as a juvenile on the discretionary offense before transferring proceedings on that charge to the adult court. {¶35} Appellant’s second assignment of error…”
State v. Rojas, 2022 Ohio 2333 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 12ד1: -3- Preble CA2021-11-013 {¶ 9} THE CRIMINAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO SENTENCE ROSALINDA ROJAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH R.C. 2152.121. {¶ 10} In her first assignment of error, Rojas argues the common pleas court committed plain error by failing to adhere to the reverse-bindover…”
In re D.M., 2017 Ohio 8768 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6דThe state objected to vacating the sentence but agreed that the case should be returned to the juvenile division, pursuant to the reverse-bindover procedure in R.C. 2152.121, so that the juvenile court could determine whether D.”
State v. Gregory, 2020 Ohio 5207 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6דAnd finally, the court stayed its sentence pursuant to R.C. 2152.121 and transferred the case back to juvenile court for further “reverse bindover” proceedings, noting that the charges of which Gregory was convicted were different from the charges originally filed in the…”
State v. Jones, 2022 Ohio 1169 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4דR.C. 2152.121. Reverse bindover occurs following juveniles’ convictions or pleas to a crime in adult court that would not have qualified the juveniles for mandatory or discretionary transfer.”
State v. D.B., 2017 Ohio 6952 (Ohio 2017). “We determined that these cases present a conflict. 142 Ohio St.3d 1446 , 2015-Ohio-1591 , 29 N.”
State v. D.B. (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6952 (Ohio 2017). “ANALYSIS {¶ 10} In answering the certified question, we must determine the meaning of the various provisions of R.C. 2152.121. When considering the meaning of a statute, our “primary goal * * * is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s intent in enacting the statute.”
State v. D.B., 2017 Ohio 6952 (Ohio 2017). “We determined that these cases present a conflict. 142 Ohio St.3d 1446 , 2015-Ohio-1591 , 29 N.”
State v. Grant, 2019 Ohio 3561 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE THE CRIMINAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO SENTENCE EMMANUEL GRANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH R.C. 2152.121 * * *. {¶4} In his first assignment of error, Mr.”
State v. Ferguson, 2017 Ohio 7930 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “1 He *991 claims that (1) the trial court erred in using a prior juvenile adjudication to impose a mandatory prison term, (2) the trial court erred in failing to suppress statements that he made to the police (3) the trial court erred in imposing a maximum sentence, (4) the…”
State v. Mays, 2014 Ohio 3815 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “12(F) otherwise imposes to conduct further hearings or to make findings with respect to appellant’s eligibility to be tried as a juvenile on the discretionary offense before transferring proceedings on that charge to the adult court. {¶35} Appellant’s second assignment of error…”
State v. D.B. (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6952 (Ohio 2017). “ANALYSIS {¶ 10} In answering the certified question, we must determine the meaning of the various provisions of R.C. 2152.121. When considering the meaning of a statute, our “primary goal * * * is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s intent in enacting the statute.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.121(B)(1) — 6 cases
State v. D.B., 2017 Ohio 6952 (Ohio 2017). “We determined that these cases present a conflict. 142 Ohio St.3d 1446 , 2015-Ohio-1591 , 29 N.”
State v. D.B. (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6952 (Ohio 2017). “ANALYSIS {¶ 10} In answering the certified question, we must determine the meaning of the various provisions of R.C. 2152.121. When considering the meaning of a statute, our “primary goal * * * is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s intent in enacting the statute.”
State v. Grant, 2019 Ohio 3561 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE THE CRIMINAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO SENTENCE EMMANUEL GRANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH R.C. 2152.121 * * *. {¶4} In his first assignment of error, Mr.”
State v. Ferguson, 2017 Ohio 7930 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “1 He *991 claims that (1) the trial court erred in using a prior juvenile adjudication to impose a mandatory prison term, (2) the trial court erred in failing to suppress statements that he made to the police (3) the trial court erred in imposing a maximum sentence, (4) the…”
State v. D.B., 2017 Ohio 6952 (Ohio 2017). “We determined that these cases present a conflict. 142 Ohio St.3d 1446 , 2015-Ohio-1591 , 29 N.”
State v. Grant, 2019 Ohio 3561 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE THE CRIMINAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO SENTENCE EMMANUEL GRANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH R.C. 2152.121 * * *. {¶4} In his first assignment of error, Mr.”
State v. Ferguson, 2017 Ohio 7930 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “1 He *991 claims that (1) the trial court erred in using a prior juvenile adjudication to impose a mandatory prison term, (2) the trial court erred in failing to suppress statements that he made to the police (3) the trial court erred in imposing a maximum sentence, (4) the…”
State v. Jones, 2022 Ohio 1169 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “R.C. 2152.121. Reverse bindover occurs following juveniles’ convictions or pleas to a crime in adult court that would not have qualified the juveniles for mandatory or discretionary transfer.”
State v. D.B. (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6952 (Ohio 2017). “ANALYSIS {¶ 10} In answering the certified question, we must determine the meaning of the various provisions of R.C. 2152.121. When considering the meaning of a statute, our “primary goal * * * is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s intent in enacting the statute.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.121(B)(3) — 25 cases
State v. D.B., 2017 Ohio 6952 (Ohio 2017). “We determined that these cases present a conflict. 142 Ohio St.3d 1446 , 2015-Ohio-1591 , 29 N.”
State v. Grant, 2019 Ohio 3561 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE THE CRIMINAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO SENTENCE EMMANUEL GRANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH R.C. 2152.121 * * *. {¶4} In his first assignment of error, Mr.”
State v. Ferguson, 2017 Ohio 7930 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “1 He *991 claims that (1) the trial court erred in using a prior juvenile adjudication to impose a mandatory prison term, (2) the trial court erred in failing to suppress statements that he made to the police (3) the trial court erred in imposing a maximum sentence, (4) the…”
State v. Nicholson, 2022 Ohio 2037 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “12(A)(1)(a)(i) and (2) abused its discretion in later determining, in a reverse bindover proceeding conducted pursuant to R.C. 2152.121, that he was not amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system.”
State v. Weaver, 2019 Ohio 2477 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “For the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court’s imposition of sentence, and remand the matter for the required procedure under R.C. 2152.121. I. Facts and Procedural Background {¶ 2} On January 29, 2015, two masked men accosted 14-year-old D.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.121(B)(3)(a) — 12 cases
State v. Ferguson, 2017 Ohio 7930 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “1 He *991 claims that (1) the trial court erred in using a prior juvenile adjudication to impose a mandatory prison term, (2) the trial court erred in failing to suppress statements that he made to the police (3) the trial court erred in imposing a maximum sentence, (4) the…”
State v. Grant, 2019 Ohio 3561 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE THE CRIMINAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO SENTENCE EMMANUEL GRANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH R.C. 2152.121 * * *. {¶4} In his first assignment of error, Mr.”
State v. Ferguson, 2017 Ohio 7930 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “1 He *991 claims that (1) the trial court erred in using a prior juvenile adjudication to impose a mandatory prison term, (2) the trial court erred in failing to suppress statements that he made to the police (3) the trial court erred in imposing a maximum sentence, (4) the…”
State v. Grant, 2019 Ohio 3561 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE THE CRIMINAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO SENTENCE EMMANUEL GRANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH R.C. 2152.121 * * *. {¶4} In his first assignment of error, Mr.”
State v. Gregory, 2020 Ohio 5207 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “And finally, the court stayed its sentence pursuant to R.C. 2152.121 and transferred the case back to juvenile court for further “reverse bindover” proceedings, noting that the charges of which Gregory was convicted were different from the charges originally filed in the…”
State v. D.B., 2017 Ohio 6952 (Ohio 2017). “We determined that these cases present a conflict. 142 Ohio St.3d 1446 , 2015-Ohio-1591 , 29 N.”
State v. D.B. (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 6952 (Ohio 2017). “ANALYSIS {¶ 10} In answering the certified question, we must determine the meaning of the various provisions of R.C. 2152.121. When considering the meaning of a statute, our “primary goal * * * is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s intent in enacting the statute.”
State v. Grant, 2019 Ohio 3561 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE THE CRIMINAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO SENTENCE EMMANUEL GRANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH R.C. 2152.121 * * *. {¶4} In his first assignment of error, Mr.”
State v. Ferguson, 2017 Ohio 7930 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “1 He *991 claims that (1) the trial court erred in using a prior juvenile adjudication to impose a mandatory prison term, (2) the trial court erred in failing to suppress statements that he made to the police (3) the trial court erred in imposing a maximum sentence, (4) the…”
State v. Mays, 2014 Ohio 3815 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “12(F) otherwise imposes to conduct further hearings or to make findings with respect to appellant’s eligibility to be tried as a juvenile on the discretionary offense before transferring proceedings on that charge to the adult court. {¶35} Appellant’s second assignment of error…”
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.