State v. Bryant

(Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Trial Court Case No. 23CR49

Timothy B. Hackett, Attorney for Appellant

Brandon S. Myers, Attorney for Appellee

OPINION

EPLEY, P.J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Kamron M. Bryant appeals from his convictions in the Miami County Court of Common Pleas after he pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery and one count of misdemeanor assault and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 5 to 7½ years in prison. He was also ordered to pay $25,192.06 in restitution. For the

reasons that follow, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On the evening of October 28, 2022, 17-year-old Bryant entered the Golden Bowl Buffet in Troy with the intention to eat but not pay. He ate his meal, and then he lured the manager of the restaurant, Jian Li, into the restroom under the guise of the toilet being clogged and ] violently assaulted him. When Gang Chen, another employee, entered the bathroom to investigate the commotion, Bryant beat him as well and then fled in a waiting car driven by his girlfriend.

{¶ 3} Police and medics were called, and the victims were transported to a Miami County hospital. Chen had suffered a laceration below his mouth which required stitches. Li was seriously injured; in addition to superficial cuts and bruises, he suffered a brain bleed and concussion. Due to the severity of his condition, Li was transported to Miami Valley Hospital for treatment of his injuries.

{¶ 4} When the first responders arrived on the scene, Bryant was not present, but he soon returned and spoke with several officers. Sergeant Matt Mosier noticed blood smeared on Bryant's hands and arms and recounted that Bryant had told him inconsistent stories, eventually saying it was "dine and dash" situation. Bryant told Officer Cody Compton that he had struck the victims so he could get out of the restaurant without paying for his food. According to Officer Compton, after being placed under arrest, Bryant became very belligerent and threatened to kill him, his family, and other officers on the scene.

{¶ 5} A few days later, the State filed a complaint alleging that Bryant was a

delinquent juvenile by way of having committed aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony if committed by an adult, and assault, a first-degree misdemeanor if committed by an adult. On October 6, 2022, the State filed an amended complaint adding felonious assault. It then filed a motion to certify Bryant as an adult and asked the juvenile court to transfer the case to the Miami County Court of Common Pleas, General Division, for prosecution.

{¶ 6} On October 28, 2022, the juvenile court conducted a probable cause hearing. After considering testimony from the victims and officers, the court found probable cause that Bryant had committed aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and assault, and ordered a forensic evaluation. It then set the amenability hearing for January 31, 2023. At that proceeding, the parties stipulated to the forensic evaluation by Dr. Carla Dreyer, and the court heard from Officer Compton and Officer Tony Petrovich, Bryant's juvenile probation officer. After considering the testimony, the forensic report, and Bryant's juvenile record, the court found that he was not amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system and transferred the case to the general division ("adult court").

{¶ 7} Bryant was charged by grand jury indictment with aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and assault. On April 11, 2023, he pleaded guilty to Count 1, aggravated robbery, and Count 3, assault; in exchange for the guilty pleas, the State agreed to dismiss the felonious assault charge in Count 2.

{¶ 8} On May 22, 2023, Bryant appeared in court again, this time for the disposition. At the hearing, the court heard oral statements from Bryant, his attorney, and the State. The court also stated that before the hearing it had reviewed the presentence investigation (PSI) and victim impact statements from Li and Chen. Bryant was sentenced

to 5 to 7½ years on the aggravated robbery and 180 days of local incarceration (to be served concurrently to the prison time) for the misdemeanor assault. He was also ordered to pay restitution to his victims in the amounts of $24,492.06 to Li and $700 to Chen.

{¶ 9} Bryant filed a timely appeal. We will address his arguments in an order that facilitates our analysis.

II. Transfer of the case to adult court

{¶ 10} In his second assignment of error, Bryant asserts that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it transferred his case to adult court "without sufficient credible evidence of non-amenability." His argument is that, because "additional untested rehabilitative options still remained," he should have been kept in the juvenile justice system instead of being bound over to adult court. We disagree.

{¶ 11} Juvenile courts have exclusive jurisdiction over children alleged to be delinquent, but if a child is old enough and is alleged to have committed an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, the juvenile court may transfer jurisdiction to adult court for criminal prosecution. In re D.M.S., 2021-Ohio-1214, 170 N.E.3d 61, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.). (In some cases, the court may be required to transfer jurisdiction pursuant to R.C. 2152.12(A), but those circumstances do not apply here.).

{¶ 12} After a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child by reason of committing one or more acts that would be a felony offense if committed by an adult, the juvenile court may transfer the case if it finds all of the following: (1) the child was 14 years of age or older at the time of the act charged; (2) there is probable cause to believe that the child committed the act; and (3) the child is not amenable to care or

rehabilitation within the juvenile system, and the safety of the community may require that the child be subject to adult sanctions. R.C. 2152.12(B)(1)-(3).

{¶ 13} Juv.R. 30(A) stipulates that, upon a motion to transfer jurisdiction, the juvenile court "shall hold a preliminary hearing to determine if there is probable cause to believe that the child committed the act alleged and that the act would be an offense if committed by an adult." If probable cause is established, and after determining that the child is at least 14 years old, the court "shall continue the proceeding for full investigation. The investigation shall include a mental examination of the child by a public or private agency or by a person qualified to make the examination. When the investigation is completed, an amenability hearing shall be held to determine whether to transfer jurisdiction. The criteria for transfer shall be as provided by statute." Juv.R. 30(C).

{¶ 14} In determining whether to transfer the child's case to adult court, the juvenile court must consider the following factors and any other relevant factors in favor of a transfer:

(1) The victim of the act charged suffered physical or psychological harm, or serious economic harm, as a result of the alleged act.

(2) The physical or psychological harm suffered by the victim due to the alleged act of the child was exacerbated because of the physical or psychological vulnerability or the age of the victim.

(3) The child's relationship with the victim facilitated the act charged.

(4) The child allegedly committed the act charged for hire or as a part of a gang or other organized criminal activity.

(5) The child had a firearm on or about the child's person or under the child's control at the time of the act charged, the act charged is not a violation of section 2923.12 of the Revised Code, and the child, during the commission of the act charged, allegedly used or displayed the firearm, brandished the firearm, or indicated that the child possessed a firearm.

(6) At the time of the act charged, the child was awaiting adjudication or disposition as a delinquent child, was under a community control sanction, or was on parole for a prior delinquent child adjudication or conviction.

(7) The results of any previous juvenile sanctions and programs indicate that rehabilitation of the child will not occur in the juvenile system.

(8) The child is emotionally, physically, or psychologically mature enough for the transfer.

(9) There is not sufficient time to rehabilitate the child within the juvenile system.

R.C. 2152.12(D).

{¶ 15} The juvenile court must also consider factors militating against the transfer of the youth, such as:

(1) The victim induced or facilitated the act charged.

(2) The child acted under provocation in allegedly committing the act charged.

(3) The child was not the principal actor in the act charged, or, at the time of the act charged, the child was under the negative influence or coercion

of another person.

(4) The child did not cause physical harm to any person or property, or have reasonable cause to believe that harm of that nature would occur, in allegedly committing the act charged.

(5) The child previously has not been adjudicated a delinquent child.

(6) The child is not emotionally, physically, or psychologically mature enough for the transfer.

(7) The child has a mental illness or intellectual disability.

(8) There is sufficient time to rehabilitate the child within the juvenile system and the level of security available in the juvenile system provides a reasonable assurance of public safety.

R.C. 2152.12(E).

{¶ 16} There is no requirement that every factor must be "resolved against the juvenile so long as the totality of the evidence supports a finding that the juvenile...