Opinion ID: 4472525
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The erosion of Gaskins I

Text: {¶ 25} When Gaskins’s case returned to this court after our remand, we abandoned Gaskins I’s main premise that a noncompliant bindover procedure renders the resulting adult criminal conviction void. Gaskins had alleged that the juvenile court had failed to have him undergo mental and physical examinations, which were required by statute at the time. Gaskins I, 74 Ohio St.3d at 150-151, 656 N.E.2d 1282. On remand, the warden presented evidence showing that Gaskins had affirmatively waived his right to those examinations. Gaskins v. Shiplevy, 76 Ohio 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO St.3d 380, 381, 667 N.E.2d 1194 (1996) (“Gaskins II”). In Gaskins I, this court had viewed all the requirements of the bindover procedure as jurisdictional (and thus not waivable). Gaskins I at 151. But Gaskins II held that the evidence of waiver showed that there had been “full compliance with the bindover procedure,” id. at 382, thus signaling that the mandates of the bindover statute were not jurisdictional after all. {¶ 26} Just last year, we validated Gaskins II. See Johnson v. Sloan, 154 Ohio St.3d 476, 2018-Ohio-2120, 116 N.E.3d 91, ¶ 16-17. And in another recent case, we held that a juvenile may waive the right to an amenability hearing, which is central to any discretionary bindover procedure. D.W., 133 Ohio St.3d 434, 2012-Ohio4544, 978 N.E.2d 894, at ¶ 21. This all shows that a bindover procedure is “proper” even when the juvenile waives R.C. 2152.12’s mandatory requirements. And if the requirements are waivable, they are not jurisdictional. See Wilson, 73 Ohio St.3d 40, 652 N.E.2d 196, at paragraph two of the syllabus (“The exclusive subject matter jurisdiction of the juvenile court cannot be waived”); State v. Mbodji, 129 Ohio St.3d 325, 2011-Ohio-2880, 951 N.E.2d 1025, ¶ 10 (“Because subject-matter jurisdiction involves a court’s power to hear a case, the issue can never be waived or forfeited and may be raised at any time”). {¶ 27} While Gaskins II undermined Gaskins I by concluding that a juvenile may waive the bindover procedure’s statutory mandates, other cases have undermined Gaskins I by concluding that a juvenile may forfeit them. In Morgan, we held that R.C. 2151.281(A)(1) requires a juvenile court to appoint a guardian ad litem at an amenability hearing when the juvenile’s parents are deceased and there is no guardian or legal custodian. 153 Ohio St.3d 196, 2017-Ohio-7565, 103 N.E.3d 784, at ¶ 28. But we held that noncompliance with the statute is subject to plain-error review. Id. at ¶ 49. We also reviewed for plain error in State v. Martin, another case in which a bindover error had occurred. 154 Ohio St.3d 513, 2018-Ohio-3226, 116 N.E.3d 127, ¶ 27. In these cases, we did not view an improper bindover procedure as a fundamental defect that prevented the juvenile court from transferring subject- 10 January Term, 2020 matter jurisdiction to an adult court. Indeed, in Martin, we distinguished Wilson, noting that the juvenile “was not deprived of R.C. 2152.12 bindover proceedings altogether.” Martin at ¶ 25.