State v. D.W.

• Decision Date: 04 October 2012
• Docket Number: No. 2011–1677.,2011–1677.
• Citation: 133 Ohio St.3d 434,978 N.E.2d 894
• Parties: The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. D.W., Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

133 Ohio St.3d 434

978 N.E.2d 894

The STATE of Ohio, Appellee,

v.D.W., Appellant.

No. 2011–1677.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted June 5, 2012.

Decided Oct. 4, 2012.

[Ohio St.3d 434]Syllabus of the Court

An amenability hearing under R.C. 2152.12(B)(3) may be waived provided (1) the juvenile, through counsel, expressly states on the record a waiver of the amenability hearing and (2) the juvenile court engages in a colloquy on the record with the juvenile to determine that the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.

Timothy McGinty, Acting Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Daniel T. Van and Katherine Mullin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.

Robert L. Tobik, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Nathaniel J. McDonald, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Jill Beeler, Assistant Public Defender, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Public Defender.

O'CONNOR, C.J.

[Ohio St.3d 435][Ohio St.3d 133]In this appeal, we decide whether a hearing to determine a juvenile's amenability to care or rehabilitation in the juvenile system may be waived, and we set forth the standard for valid waiver. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the record does not support a finding that D.W. waived his right to an amenability hearing. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand this case to the juvenile court for an amenability hearing or proper waiver of it.

Background

{¶ 2} Appellant, D.W., was charged with burglary, a felony, and other crimes in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, case No. DL 09–121602. At the time of the offenses, D.W. was 17 years old.

{¶ 3} The juvenile court conducted a probable cause-hearing. After stipulating to D.W.'s birth date, the juvenile court heard testimony from Shanay Ball, a victim of the crimes. The juvenile court stated, “Based on the testimony, the Court finds that there is probable cause here.” The juvenile court then noted that transfer of jurisdiction to adult court was discretionary and that D.W. had been bound over in a prior case. The following exchange occurred:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: So the Court's aware he has been bound. He does have a prior bindover that the Court has just to refresh the Court's recollection.

THE COURT: Yes. He has a bindover pending, right?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: He actually was bound over.

[ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR]: And been indicted in adult court.

THE COURT: Right. Right. I mean, so he has a case pending that was transferred, but that hasn't been—

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Resolved in any way, no.

THE COURT: —resolved yet. Okay. All right. So we'll have to refer him to our Clinic here at the Court for a full psychological.

[ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, I believe we've had some preliminary discussions about waiving the amenability. It has already been found. I don't even know that we need to waive amenability.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: If we could approach, your Honor.

[Ohio St.3d 436]THE COURT: Yes. Okay.

* * *

(Discussion held off of the record.)

* * *

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Because this Court has already found this alleged delinquent to be not amenable to the juvenile justice system on a prior case in which the Court transferred jurisdiction to the adult court, the Court in this case then will, based on this probable cause finding will then—we will transfer this case over to the adult court, as well, without having another amenability hearing. And so we will not refer him to the Court Clinic at this time.

{¶ 4} D.W. was subsequently bound over to the common pleas court and indicted by the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury on one count each of burglary, theft, vandalism, and criminal damaging and two counts of bribery. A jury acquitted him of bribery, but found him guilty of the other charges. He was sentenced to six years in prison and mandatory postrelease control.

{¶ 5} The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. State v. D.W., 8th Dist. No. 95750, 2011-Ohio-4096, 2011 WL 3612224. In doing so, it concluded that “the juvenile court first held a probable cause hearing but then never held an amenability hearing.” Id. at ¶ 30. Without elaboration, the appellate court then held that although the juvenile court did not conduct the amenability hearing, D.W., “through his counsel, waived the amenability hearing.” Id. It concluded that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in transferring the case to the common pleas court. Id.

{¶ 6} D.W. appealed, and we accepted the cause as a discretionary appeal. State v. D.W., 130 Ohio St.3d 1493, 2011-Ohio-6556, 958 N.E.2d 956. Two propositions of law are before us:

(1) The R.C. 2152.12(B)(3) amenability hearing cannot be waived.

(2) Waiver of the R.C. 2152.12(B)(3) amenability hearing before the juvenile court is not valid unless it is expressly stated on the record by the juvenile through his or her counsel, and the trial court must determine through a colloquy with the juvenile that the waiver is voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made.

[Ohio St.3d 437]ANALYSIS

A. A juvenile has a right to an amenability hearing to determine if the juvenile can remain within the juvenile justice system or be bound over to adult court, and pursuant to Juv.R. 3,¹the juvenile may waive the right to the amenability hearing

1. The Juvenile Court Milieu

{¶ 7} More than 40 years ago, the court recognized that juvenile courts are “rooted in social welfare philosophy rather than in the corpus juris.” Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 554, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966). “The juvenile courts were premised on profoundly different assumptions and goals than a criminal court, United States v. Johnson (C.A.D.C.1994), 28 F.3d 151, 157 (Wald, J., dissenting), and eschewed traditional, objective criminal standards and retributive notions of justice.” In re C.S., 115 Ohio St.3d 267, 274, 2007-Ohio-4919, 874 N.E.2d 1177, ¶ 66. The objectives of the juvenile court “are to provide measures of guidance and rehabilitation for the child and protection for society, not to fix criminal responsibility, guilt and punishment.” Kent at 554, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84.

{¶ 8} The United States Supreme Court recently reiterated that juveniles have “diminished culpability” and are therefore “ ‘less deserving of the most severe punishments.’ ” Miller v. Alabama, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2464, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), quoting Graham v. Florida, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 2026, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). Because of juveniles' “ ‘lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility,’ ” they “are more * * * susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure,” and their characters are “not as well formed.” Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569–570, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), quoting Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350, 367, 113 S.Ct. 2658, 125 L.Ed.2d 290 (1993). Accordingly, the actions of juveniles are less likely to be evidence of “irretrievably depraved character” than are the actions of adults. Id. at 570, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1. “From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed.” Id.See also Miller, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2464–2465, 183 L.Ed.2d 407, and fn. 5.

{¶ 9} But in response to a rise in rates and severity of juvenile crime and the belief that not all juveniles can be rehabilitated, in 1969, the General Assembly [Ohio St.3d 438]enacted a statutory scheme that provides for some juveniles to be removed from the juvenile courts' authority. One such provision, R.C. 2152.12, formerly R.C. 2151.26, Am.Sub.H.B. No. 320, 133 Ohio Laws, Part III, 2040, 2049–2050, is at issue in this appeal. That statute allows juvenile courts to transfer certain juveniles to adult court to face criminal sanctions.

{¶ 10} “Two types of transfer exist under Ohio's juvenile justice system: discretionary and mandatory.” State v. Hanning, 89 Ohio St.3d 86, 728 N.E.2d 1059 (2000). “Mandatory transfer removes discretion from judges in the transfer decision in certain situations.” Id.R.C. 2152.12(A). “Discretionary transfer, as its name implies, allows judges the discretion to transfer or bind over to adult court certain juveniles who do not appear to be amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system or appear to be a threat to public safety.” Id.;R.C. 2152.12(B).

{¶ 11} In instances of discretionary transfer, as in this case,

the juvenile court is also to determine the age of the child and whether probable cause exists to believe that the juvenile committed the act charged. R.C. 2152.10(B) and 2152.12(B)(1) and (2). However, if probable cause exists and the child is eligible by age, the juvenile court must then continue the proceeding for a full investigation. R.C. 2152.12(C) and Juv.R. 30(C). This investigation includes a mental examination of the child, a hearing to determine whether the child is “amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system” or whether “the safety of the community may require that the child be subject to adult sanctions,” and the consideration of 17 other statutory criteria to determine whether a transfer is appropriate. Juv.R. 30(C); R.C. 2152.12(B), (C), (D), and (E).

In re M.P., 124 Ohio St.3d 445, 2010-Ohio-599, 923 N.E.2d 584, ¶ 12.

{¶ 12} An amenability hearing helps determine whether a juvenile who is eligible for discretionary bindover will be transferred to adult court. A critical stage of the juvenile proceedings, the hearing affects whether the juvenile faces a delinquency adjudication, or adult criminal sanctions and the label “felon.” Kent, 383 U.S. at 560, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 16 L.Ed.2d 84. Given the nature and consequences of the amenability hearing, juvenile court judges are entrusted with significant authority when conducting the hearings.

{¶ 13} The role of...