State v. Smith

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 2455

Syllabus

The trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion to dismiss for unconstitutional bindover wherein he argued his mandatory bindover, and the mandatory bindover provisions set forth under R.C. 2152.10(A)(2)(b) and 2152.12(A)(1)(b), were unconstitutional because they required his case be bound over to the trial court for criminal prosecution without the juvenile court first holding an amenability hearing given the current state of the law holds that the mandatory bindover provisions found R.C. 2152.10(A)(2)(b) and 2152.12(A)(1)(b) are constitutional based on the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Aalim, 150 Ohio St.3d 489, 2017-Ohio-2956.