Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Crosby

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

June 6, 2019

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DAPRI CROSBY, Defendant-Appellant.

          Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-18-626635-A

          Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Carson Strang, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

          Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Victoria Bader, Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          MARY J. BOYLE, PRESIDING JUDGE.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Dapri Crosby, appeals his convictions. He raises one assignment of error for our review:

The juvenile court abused its discretion when it determined that 17-year[-]old Dapri was not amenable to treatment in the juvenile system, in violation of R.C. 2152.12(B); Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 10, of the Ohio Constitution.

         {¶ 2} Finding no merit to his argument, we affirm.

         I. Procedural History and Factual Background

         {¶ 3} In March 2018, Crosby was indicted on nine counts involving four separate burglaries that took place over a one-month span in May and June 2017. The charges included four counts of burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(2), felonies of the second degree; two counts of criminal damaging in violation of R.C. 2909.06(A)(1), misdemeanors of the second degree; two counts of theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), misdemeanors of the first degree; and one count of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2), a felony of the fourth degree. One of the criminal damaging counts contained a furthermore clause that Crosby created a risk of physical harm to the victim. Additionally, one of the burglary counts carried a one-year firearm specification and two of the charges (burglary and concealed weapon) contained a weapon-forfeiture specification.

         {¶ 4} The state requested that Crosby's case be transferred to adult court.[1] Crosby subsequently stipulated to probable cause, and the trial court held a hearing on the issue of amenability. The following facts were presented at the hearing.

         {¶ 5} Detective Michael Kitchen testified that he investigated a burglary that took place on May 21, 2017. Police obtained a fingerprint from the home, which belonged to Crosby. He stated that another person was involved in the burglary, but police were not able to identify that person.

         {¶ 6} Teresa Evans-Guyton testified that her home was burglarized on May 31, 2017. She was at work when she received an alert on her cell phone from her doorbell camera, which also sends a video. She said that she could see someone who she did not know knocking at her door. She saw another young man in the driveway and then saw a car pull up to her house with "other males." There were four males involved. At that point, she called the police. As she was on the phone with the dispatcher, she saw three men proceed to the back of her house. A few minutes after that, while she was on the phone with the dispatcher, she got an alarm on her phone that someone had entered her back door. Evans-Guyton left work immediately. When she got there, the men were gone. They could be seen on the video running from her house and getting into the car that had pulled up earlier. Crosby could be seen in the doorbell video as the second male who rang Evans-Guyton's doorbell. He was the only male charged in this burglary.

         {¶ 7} Evans-Guyton testified that she did not notice anything missing, but the back door to her house was damaged. Evans-Guyton stated that she was "terrified" as she "watched the entire thing unfold" and felt "violated." She said that she has lived in her neighborhood for a long time and nothing like this had ever happened before. She said that this incident gave her a "sense of fear and dread" to come home. She has had a lot more anxiety since this incident and is "a lot more careful."

         {¶ 8} Nancy McLaughlin testified that on June 1, 2017, she was at work when she received a call from her daughter who told her that their home security company called her to tell her that their security alarm was ringing at their house. McLaughlin did not work far from home, so she immediately drove home. While she was driving, she called the police who said they were already at her home. McLaughlin's television was missing, but nothing else. McLaughlin explained that she had damage to two windows and a door. McLaughlin testified that she was "angry" and "scared." She said that she had never had anything like that happen to her before this incident. After this incident, she installed alarms on her windows too. She stated that she was afraid to leave her house and is still "a little nervous about it." Her total loss amounted to approximately $1, 300.

         {¶ 9} Detective Martin Block testified that he investigated the burglary at McLaughlin's home. He said that police were able to lift fingerprints from the scene, and one of them belonged to Crosby. Detective Block further explained that at least one other male had been charged along with Crosby.

         {¶ 10} Denise Lang testified that on June 26, 2017, someone broke into her home. She received a call about the burglary around 12:30 p.m. She left work immediately. When she arrived home, police were already there and had two suspects in custody, one of whom was Crosby. Lang's home was in "total disarray" and had been "ransacked." Lang stated that nothing was damaged or taken from her home. She was upset to learn that the suspects had 9 mm guns on them. Lang stated that her daughter had just left before the suspects entered her home. She said that the incident "worried" her because her two adult children are "in and out" of the home all of the time and that she still thinks about it.

         {¶ 11} Rondell Lewis testified that he is a placement aftercare coordinator for the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court. Lewis "oversees OhioGuidestone." Crosby was placed at OhioGuidestone on October 24, 2016, which is when Lewis became his caseworker. Lewis described Crosby's criminal history as of the time of his placement, which began in 2013 and included numerous delinquencies for receiving stolen property, theft, criminal damaging, escape, carrying a concealed weapon, obstructing official business, probation violation, and assault.

         {¶ 12} Lewis stated that Crosby was at OhioGuidestone until January 18, 2017, when he went AWOL and did not complete the program. Crosby was "discharged unsuccessfully," but he received many services while he was there. Some of the services included Thinking for a Change, which teaches children to focus on long-term decision-making, residential treatment, drug education, anger management, and psychiatric services. Lewis explained that Crosby had only been diagnosed with conduct disorder, so he did not require a lot of psychiatric services. Crosby was also enrolled in school while he was there.

         {¶ 13} Lewis testified that prior to OhioGuidestone, Crosby was enrolled at Glen Mills School from October 17, 2015, to April 15, 2016. Lewis stated that while Crosby did well at Glen Mills and actually completed the program, Crosby got into more trouble after he was released.

         {¶ 14} The court asked Lewis why he thought Crosby had such a difficult time with services. Lewis stated that Crosby was easily influenced by peers, like in the current cases where there were multiple codefendants or codelinquents. Lewis said that Crosby does not "stop and think * * * how his decisions are going to affect him long-term." When he gets out of a program, he goes right back to those same peers who have a negative influence on him despite having a good support system from his aunt who has custody of him because his parents are deceased.

         {¶ 15} Crosby had also been "on home detention a number of times," placed in "Cleveland Christian Home as a form of shelter care," and has been referred to some outpatient counseling programs. Crosby did not do well with the outpatient counseling programs "due to his lack of accountability." He also went AWOL from Cleveland Christian Home and home monitoring when he cut off his ankle monitor.

         {¶ 16} Lewis stated that Crosby has also spent time in the juvenile detention center. Lewis was aware that Crosby had been transferred from the detention center because of behavioral issues, but he did not know exactly what happened. Crosby had never been sent to the Ohio Department of Youth Services.

         {¶ 17} Lewis explained that Crosby was a "good kid when you sit down and you talk to him one-to-one." He said that Crosby is personable, intelligent, well-spoken, and respectful. But then when he is around his peers again, he makes bad choices and goes right back to criminal activity. Lewis stated that it is not very often that a juvenile gets the opportunity to go to more than one residential placement, but Crosby did, and it still did not help him.

         {¶ 18} Crosby was scheduled to have a psychological evaluation in February 2018, but he refused. Crosby's counsel, however, stipulated to an older psychological evaluation from September 2017. The state argued against stipulation, stating that when a juvenile refuses to submit to a psychological evaluation, he or she waives the right to have it admitted under R.C. 2152.12. The court overruled the state's objection and admitted the report.

         {¶ 19} In the report, Dr. Joseph Konieczny stated that Crosby's "full scale I.Q. places him in the low average range of intellectual functioning for individuals his age." Dr. Konieczny further reported that Crosby "perceive[d] himself to be experiencing acute psychological turmoil" and "endorses feelings of anxiety, depression, and agitation." According to Dr. Konieczny, Crosby also "lacks self-confidence and self-esteem" and "likely harbors intense feelings of immaturity and insecurity." Dr. Konieczny stated that Crosby "is likely to rationalize his behaviors and is likely to accept little or no responsibility for his own behaviors." Dr. Konieczny diagnosed Crosby with "conduct disorder, adolescent onset type, severe" and "borderline intellectual functioning." There was no evidence, however, that Crosby "suffers from any major mental or psychiatric disorder that is affecting his ability to perceive reality."

         {¶ 20} Dr. Konieczny concluded that there was only one factor that indicated Crosby would be responsive to rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system, which was the fact that he showed "a positive adjustment during his placement at the Glen Mills School." Dr. Konieczny stated, however, that Crosby's criminal history dating back to 2013, his history of regular marijuana use, the fact that Crosby was on probation at the time of the current charges, and the fact that he was "beyond the age of majority," were all factors that indicated Crosby would not be responsive to rehabilitative care in the juvenile justice system.

         {¶ 21} After considering all of the factors before it, the trial court found that Crosby was not amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system and bound Crosby's case over to the adult criminal court.

         {¶ 22} In adult court, Crosby pleaded guilty to an amended indictment of three counts of burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), third-degree felonies, and one count of burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(2), a second-degree felony, with a one-year firearm specification.

         {¶ 23} The common pleas court sentenced Crosby to two years for each of the felony-three burglary counts and six years for the felony-two burglary, to be served concurrent to each other and consecutive to one year for the firearm specification, for a total prison sentence of seven years. The court also informed Crosby that he would be subject to a mandatory three years of postrelease control upon his release from prison, and it waived court costs. It is from this judgment that Crosby now appeals.

         II. Discretionary Transfer of Jurisdiction

         {¶ 24} Under Ohio's juvenile justice system, there are two types of transfer: mandatory and discretionary. State v. Mays,2014-Ohio-3815, 18 N.E.3d 850, ¶ 17 (8th Dist), citing State ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.