Skip to main content

In re D.J.

Citations

  • 2019 Ohio 288

Syllabus

CHILDREN – APPELLATE REVIEW – BINDOVER – JURISDICTION: Appellate review is strictly limited to the record on appeal which consists of three categories of documents identified in App.R. 9: the original papers and exhibits thereto filed in the trial court the transcript of proceedings, if any, including exhibits and a certified copy of the docket and journal entries prepared by the clerk of the trial court. When an appellant has failed in his duty to ensure that the record on appeal includes the items necessary to the resolution of the assigned errors, the reviewing court presumes the regularity of the lower court's proceedings. The juvenile court's entry of dismissal for want of prosecution was not a determination that the juvenile was delinquent, left the parties as if the action had never been commenced, and did not affect the juvenile's substantial rights thus the juvenile court's entry, entered in a special proceeding, was not a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2). Ordinarily, R.C. 2152.12(B) permits a juvenile court to order the transfer of a discretionary-transfer delinquency case only if the court has found at a hearing, inter alia, that the child was not amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system and should be subject to adult sanctions to ensure the safety of the community but a juvenile court may transfer jurisdiction of a discretionary-transfer delinquency case without an amenability hearing as long as it has found probable cause to believe that the juvenile also committed a mandatory-transfer offense and that both the mandatory-transfer offense and the additional discretionary charges arose from a common nucleus of operative facts. Where there is no evidence of record that a discretionary-transfer delinquency case and a mandatory-transfer delinquency case, which included acts committed by the same juvenile, arose from a common nucleus of operative facts, the juvenile court is not relieved of the requirement under R.C. 2152.12(B) to con

Judges: Cunningham

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.