[Cite as State v. Smith, 2022-Ohio-2455.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

Appellee,

 - vs -

MICHAEL RODARIOUS SMITH aka 

MICHAEL SMITH,

Appellant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

CASE NO. CA2021-10-126

O P I N I O N

7/18/2022

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Case No. CR2019-08-1344

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael Greer, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Repper-Pagan Law, Ltd., and Christopher J. Pagan, for appellant.

S. POWELL, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Michael Rodarious Smith aka Michael Smith, appeals from his 

conviction in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas after he pled guilty to one count of 

murder with an accompanying one-year firearm specification. For the reasons outlined 

below, we affirm Smith's conviction.
Butler CA2021-10-126

- 2 -

{¶ 2} On June 27, 2019, Smith, who was then just 17 years old, shot and killed the 

victim, Shon Walker. Following the shooting, Smith disposed of his clothing and the firearm 

that he used to shoot and kill Walker. The record indicates the shooting was caught on 

video and a witness identified Smith as the shooter.

{¶ 3} On July 11, 2019, a complaint was filed in the Butler County Court of Common 

Pleas, Juvenile Division ("juvenile court"), charging Smith with two counts of murder, both 

of which were accompanied by a firearm specification, and one count of tampering with 

evidence. Because Smith was charged with murder, and because Smith was 17 years old 

at the time of the offenses, Smith was subject to a mandatory bindover to the Butler County 

Court of Common Pleas, General Division ("trial court"), if the juvenile court found there was 

probable cause to believe Smith had committed the three charged offenses. 

{¶ 4} On August 21, 2019, the juvenile court held a probable cause hearing. During 

this hearing, Smith's counsel advised the juvenile court that Smith had decided to waive his 

right to the probable cause hearing. Following the state's recitation of facts, and after the 

juvenile court engaged in a colloquy with Smith, the juvenile court accepted Smith's waiver 

and found there was probable cause to believe Smith had committed all three charged 

offenses. The juvenile court then set bond and the matter was transferred to the trial court 

for criminal prosecution. There is no dispute the juvenile court did not hold an amenability 

hearing prior to transferring the matter to the trial court.

{¶ 5} On September 25, 2019, a Butler County Grand Jury returned a three-count

indictment charging Smith with two counts of murder, one in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A) 

with the other in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B), both unclassified felonies that included threeyear firearm specifications under R.C. 2941.145, and one count of third-degree felony 

tampering with evidence in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1).

{¶ 6} On August 17, 2020, Smith pled guilty to one count of murder in violation of 
Butler CA2021-10-126

- 3 -

R.C. 2903.02(B)(1) with an accompanying one-year firearm specification. Smith was 

thereafter sentenced by the trial court on September 9, 2020 to a total, aggregate sentence 

of 16 years to life in prison. Smith appealed his conviction to this court and, except for a 

limited remand on matters not relevant to this appeal, this court affirmed. State v. Smith, 

12th Dist. Butler No. CA2020-09-101, 2021-Ohio-2982.

{¶ 7} On August 30, 2021, Smith filed a motion with the trial court entitled "Motion 

to Dismiss for Unconstitutional Bindover." In his motion, Smith 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 it required his case be bound over to the 

trial court for criminal prosecution without the juvenile court first holding an amenability 

hearing. To support this argument, Smith noted that the Ohio Supreme Court had accepted 

for review the case of State v. Bunch, Case No. 2021-0579, and the issue of whether "[a] 

child cannot be transferred to adult court without a finding that they are not amendable to 

treatment in juvenile court." See Id., Case No. 2021-0579, Case Information, 

https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/#/caseinfo/2021/0579 (last accessed July

7, 2022).1

{¶ 8} On August 31, 2021, the trial court issued an entry denying Smith's motion to 

dismiss. In so holding, the trial court stated:

The current state of the law on the instant issue is that the 

mandatory bindover provisions under Ohio Revised Code 

sections 2152.10(A)(2)(b) and 2152.12(A)(1)(b) are 

constitutional. [State v. Aalim, 150 Ohio St.3d 489, 2017-Ohio2956]. This Court is bound by the precedent of that decision. 

This Court hereby DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss as 

being not well taken.

{¶ 9} On October 22, 2021, Smith filed a motion for leave to file a delayed notice of 

1. We note that oral argument in Bunch was held before the Ohio Supreme Court on April 12, 2022.
Butler CA2021-10-126

- 4 -

appeal. This court granted Smith's motion on December 3, 2021. Smith's delayed appeal 

now properly before this court for decision, Smith raises the following single assignment of 

error for review.

{¶ 10} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY HOLDING THAT SMITH'S MANDATORY 

BINDOVER SATISFIED DUE PROCESS WITHOUT AN AMENABILITY HEARING.

{¶ 11} Smith argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss by "holding 

Smith's mandatory bindover satisfied Due Process without an amenability hearing." The 

trial court, however, did not err by finding the law, as it currently stands, 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 Aalim, 2017-Ohio-2956. 

Specifically, as the Ohio Supreme Court stated in Aalim:

[T]he mandatory bindover of certain juveniles to adult court 

under R.C. 2152.10(A)(2)(b) and 2152.12(A)(1)(b) does not 

violate the Due Course of Law Clause or the Equal Protection 

Clause of the Ohio Constitution and the analogous provisions of 

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Id. at ¶ 4.

{¶ 12} This court, just like the trial court before us, "[is] bound by and constrained to 

follow the decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court." State v. Rogers, 12th Dist. Butler No. 

CA2019-11-194, 2020-Ohio-4102, ¶ 24, citing State v. Sheets, 12th Dist. Clermont No. 

CA2006-04-032, 2007-Ohio-1799, ¶ 16 ("[a]n appellate court is bound to follow a decision 

of the Ohio Supreme Court and cannot overrule that court's decision or declare it 

unconstitutional"). The fact that the Ohio Supreme Court may reverse its decision in Aalim 

when it decides Bunch does not necessarily mean the court will, in fact, do so. We find it 

just as likely the Ohio Supreme Court issues an opinion in Bunch that reaffirms its holding 

in Aalim. 

{¶ 13} In light of the foregoing, and so this court can continue to process cases 
Butler CA2021-10-126

- 5 -

through this court as expeditiously as possible, we decline Smith's invitation to forego 

releasing a decision in this case until the Ohio Supreme Court issues its opinion in Bunch. 

Therefore, finding no error in the trial court's decision denying Smith's motion to dismiss 

based on the current state of the law as set forth by the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in 

Aalim, Smith's single assignment of error lacks merit and is overruled.

{¶ 14} Judgment affirmed.

M. POWELL, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.