State v. E.B., 2025 Ohio 5142 (Ohio 2025)

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, found that the trial court erred in failing to stay E.B.’s sentencing and failed to order the case be returned to juvenile court, where E.B. was transferred to adult court but ultimately pled guilty to offenses that would not have required mandatory transfer. Additionally, the Court of Appeals found that E.B.’s attorney was ineffective because they did not raise the transfer issue at sentencing, and it resulted in E.B. receiving a prison sentence rather than a disposition in juvenile court.

The court stated in relevant part: “Thus, pursuant to the process laid out above, at the criminal sentencing hearing, “the trial court must consider and compare how a juvenile’s case was transferred to its jurisdiction, and the resulting offense of conviction before the court.” Abrams at ¶ 9. “‘In other words, the trial court must determine what the juvenile court would have been required to do with the case if the juvenile had been charged with only those offenses for which convictions were obtained.’” Id., quoting State v. D.B., 2017-Ohio-6952, ¶ 12. If the resulting offense would have allowed for discretionary transfer instead of mandatory transfer, the trial court “must impose a sentence, stay the sentence, and return the case to juvenile court.” Id. This reverse bindover process ensures that the juvenile court is afforded full discretion to determine those children that will benefit from rehabilitative measures, even if the juvenile court was not initially afforded that discretion. Id.

. . .

E.B.’s counsel did not raise R.C. 2152.121 at his plea hearing or at sentencing. Therefore, because of his counsel’s failure to raise the issue, E.B. has had his sentence imposed and is serving that sentence in an adult prison instead of having his case remanded to juvenile court where counsel could have argued that he was amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile system. E.B.’s counsel “should have known about R.C. 2152.121, which went into effect in 2011.” Abrams at ¶ 17. Because E.B. was prejudiced by his counsel’s deficient performance, his second assignment of error is sustained.”