[Cite as State v. Peaks,
2025-Ohio-2707.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
: C.A. No. 30238
Appellee :
: Trial Court Case No. 2022 CR 03480/2
v. :
: (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas
TYLAN PEAKS : Court)
:
Appellant : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY &
: OPINION
...........
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on August 1, 2025, the judgment of the
trial court is affirmed.
Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.
Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately
serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.
Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified
copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note
the service on the appellate docket.
For the court,
RONALD C. LEWIS, JUDGE
TUCKER, J., and HANSEMAN, J., concur.
-2-
OPINION
MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30238
ROBERT ALAN BRENNER, Attorney for Appellant
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by ANDREW T. FRENCH, Attorney for Appellee
LEWIS, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Tylan Peaks appeals from his convictions in the
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, General Division, following his guilty pleas.
Peaks argues that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the State’s motions to
transfer his cases from juvenile court to the general division for prosecution as an adult.
For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
I. Procedural History and Facts
{¶ 2} On January 27, 2022, a complaint was filed in the Montgomery County Court of
Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, charging 15-year-old Peaks as a juvenile delinquent in
Case No. 2022-000383 with one count of aggravated murder and three counts of aggravated
robbery. Each of the counts would have constituted felonies if committed by an adult. The
complaint was later amended to four counts of murder, three counts of aggravated robbery,
two counts of felonious assault, and one count each of grand theft of a motor vehicle and
tampering with evidence, all felonies if committed by an adult. With the exception of grand
theft of a motor vehicle and tampering with evidence, the counts included three-year firearm
specifications. The complaint was based on a carjacking of a Lyft driver at gunpoint in the
early hours of January 26, 2022. Less than an hour later, Peaks and his co-offenders shot
and killed another Lyft driver during a second attempted carjacking.
{¶ 3} The State filed a motion for discretionary transfer under R.C. 2152.10(B) and
-3-
2152.12(B), asking the juvenile court to relinquish jurisdiction and transfer the case to the
general division to try Peaks as an adult. On August 15, 2022, a probable cause hearing
was held, after which the trial court found probable cause to believe that Peaks had
committed each of the offenses alleged in the complaint. The matter was scheduled for a
hearing to determine Peaks’s amenability to treatment within the juvenile system.
{¶ 4} Prior to Peaks’s amenability hearing, he was charged in a second complaint as
a juvenile delinquent in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division,
Case No. 2023-000124, for conduct that would amount to the following felonies if committed
by an adult: three counts of aggravated robbery with attached three-year firearm
specifications and three counts of grand theft of a motor vehicle. The State filed a motion
to transfer the case to the general division for Peaks to be tried as an adult. The complaint
was based on armed carjackings of an Uber driver and an Uber Eats driver on January 23,
2022, and of a Lyft driver on January 25, 2022, in the days leading up to the events alleged
in Case No. 2022-000383.
{¶ 5} On April 3, 2023, a probable cause hearing was held in Case No. 2023-000124.
Peaks stipulated to a set of facts and exhibits, which were submitted to the court. After
reviewing the evidence, the trial court found probable cause to believe Peaks had committed
the offenses charged in that case. An amenability hearing was scheduled for both of
Peaks’s cases.
{¶ 6} At the beginning of the amenability hearing, the parties agreed to submit the
same exhibits that had been admitted during the two prior probable cause hearings,
including the stipulated facts which were admitted as Court’s exhibits. The State then
presented the testimony of Dayton Police Detective Angela Woody and court psychologist
Dr. Laura Fujimura.
-4-
{¶ 7} Detective Woody of the Dayton Police Department homicide unit testified that
she was called out to 1029 Ferguson Avenue around 2:30 a.m. on January 26, 2022. A
male, later identified as B.C., was discovered deceased in his crashed vehicle. B.C. was
found in the driver’s seat and had been shot and killed immediately prior to the crash.
Detectives learned that his phone showed a notification indicating that he was on a Lyft job
en route to 53 Cambridge Avenue when he crashed.
{¶ 8} Based on discussions with other detectives, a person of interest was known to
live at 53 Cambridge Avenue. Just hours before B.C.’s shooting, an aggravated robbery of
another Lyft driver, T.G., had occurred, and T.G. had also been en route to 53 Cambridge
Avenue when she was carjacked. T.G.’s vehicle had a tracking system and was discovered
inside a garage at 322 Anna Avenue.
{¶ 9} When officers went to 322 Anna Avenue on January 26, 2022, the residents,
D.M. and his mother, came out of the house. Peaks and two others were found inside the
residence. Peaks was transported to the police department for an interview with detectives.
During his interview, Peaks made admissions about the robbery of T.G. and the homicide of
B.C. After Detective Woody interviewed Peaks, other detectives also interviewed him
about three additional robberies in which he was suspected of being involved. This
included the robberies of Uber driver L.T. on January 23, 2022, Uber Eats driver J.S. on
January 23, 2022, and Lyft driver C.B. on January 25, 2022. Peaks made admissions to
the other detectives about his involvement in those three carjackings.
{¶ 10} A search of Peaks’s social media accounts revealed information related to
gang affiliations, guns, drugs, robberies, and stolen vehicles. One of the video clips from
Peaks’s social media account was a recording made approximately two hours before the
robbery of T.G.; it showed Peaks with a firearm in a bedroom at 322 Anna Street. At the
-5-
end of the recording, a gunshot was fired inside the house.
{¶ 11} Dr. Laura Fujimura, a licensed psychologist employed at the Montgomery
County Juvenile Court for more than 30 years, conducted a forensic assessment of Peaks
for the amenability evaluation. She met with Peaks on three separate occasions, obtained
a significant amount of collateral information, such as educational records, mental health
records, medical records, and police reports, and spoke with Peaks’s guardian, guardian ad
litem, and probation officer. Dr. Fujimura utilized an instrument called the Structured
Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth as a guide to categorize the data and assess factors
and areas of risk.
{¶ 12} From the records Dr. Fujimura reviewed, she learned that Montgomery County
Children Services (“MCCS”) had obtained custody of Peaks in 2018. Peaks lacked family
support; his mother was often on drugs, and he had a strained relationship with her after he
was removed from the home. Although Peaks denied that he was ever physically or
sexually abused, he witnessed domestic violence at home, and one of his mother’s
boyfriends called him names and threw things at him when he was about 10 years old.
Peaks’s two siblings were either in juvenile detention or prison, and his father had been in
and out of prison for Peaks’s whole life. His father also struggled with drugs in addition to
mental disorders, such as bipolar disorder. Peaks stated he started smoking marijuana in
8th grade and drinking alcohol in 9th grade.
{¶ 13} MCCS was involved with Peaks’s family for several years and primarily
obtained placements for Peaks in foster homes or group homes and ensured that he was
provided with services. Peaks exhibited a pattern of leaving placements and finding
different places to stay. As the runaway behaviors and oppositional behaviors continued,
there were fewer placements willing to take him. In January 2022, Peaks was placed with
-6-
a non-relative friend of the family, although at the time of the offenses at issue, he was
staying at a friend’s home. It was difficult for services to be provided to Peaks, because he
refused to remain in locations where individuals could support him.
{¶ 14} Although Peaks did not perform at an appropriate grade level in all his
subjects, Dr. Fujimura believed it was because he missed a lot of school, not because he
had an intellectual disability. Peaks’s absences became so chronic that he essentially quit
attending school. But while in the detention center, Peaks had a GPA of 3.4 and informed
Dr. Fujimura that he wanted to graduate high school, attend college, and own his own shoe
business online.
{¶ 15} Peaks had a long-standing history of behavioral difficulties in school beginning
in the second grade. At the age of eight, Peaks exhibited issues such as cursing, throwing
desks, making inappropriate sexual gestures, and intimidating other students to the point
that they were fearful of Peaks due to his emotional outbursts and inability to control his
anger. Peaks had a history of suspensions for fighting, including one suspension for
threatening to shoot up the school when he became angry, which led to formal delinquency
charges. Because of his behavioral issues, Peaks was linked with mental health services
through South Community, where he engaged in individual therapy, family therapy,
psychiatric services, and equine therapy. His family was provided with transportation and
food assistance.
{¶ 16} Peaks received services through South Community beginning in 2015. There
was subsequently a pause in services, but they were re-initiated in August 2017. As of
December 28, 2020, Peaks no longer received services through South Community because
he did not want to engage in treatment and would not speak with his therapist.
{¶ 17} In 2019, Peaks was adjudicated for making false alarms related to his threat
-7-
to shoot up the school. He was placed on probation and linked to many services. Peaks
was connected with a basketball team and yoga classes, received a mentor, and worked
with Sunlight Village, where he could mow lawns for money. Peaks’s probation officer
worked to continue the services for Peaks for a year after his probation ended. Peaks told
his probation officer that “he will do what he wants and does not care about what he is being
told to do.” Tr. 81. 1 Peaks told Dr. Fujimura that he learned nothing from being on
probation.
{¶ 18} Peaks was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”)
and oppositional defiant disorder as a child. Peaks was later diagnosed with post-traumatic
stress disorder (“PTSD”), ADHD, and conduct disorder with childhood onset, meaning that
his symptoms occurred prior to age 10. Dr. Fujimura stated that conduct disorder with
childhood onset was more difficult to treat than if the onset had been at a later age, and the
symptoms did not remain as long.
{¶ 19} According to Dr. Fujimura, as a pattern, there had been no decrease in Peaks’s
behaviors from age 8 to 15. Rather, they remained stable or increased and then escalated
dramatically prior to his detention. By February 2023, however, Peaks had a black shirt in
the detention center, which designated the best behavior level. Despite this, Dr. Fujimura
suspected that Peaks was not genuinely motivated to do better and attributed his
improvement to not wanting to get bound over to the adult court.
{¶ 20} While at the detention center, Peaks participated in individual counseling with
Ashley Hall for 30 sessions and then with Erika Jones for 6 sessions. At the time of the
amenability hearing, he was seeing Jones, who indicated that Peaks had been distancing
1
All references to transcripts in this opinion are to the amenability hearing.
-8-
himself and not requesting as many sessions with her. Jones further stated that Peaks was
not talking and engaging as fully as he could during his sessions with her. Peaks had made
suicidal comments, but he told Dr. Fujimura that he would do that when he was angry. In
discussing a time when Peaks made a threat to harm himself, Dr. Fujimura explained that it
was done in a way to manipulate others. Thus, it was a behavioral issue for Peaks, not a
mental health issue.
{¶ 21} Dr. Fujimura opined that Peaks had a high risk of engaging in future violent
behavior and was not amenable to services in the juvenile justice system. Peaks lacked
positive support and other factors that could mitigate his risk. Dr. Fujimura stated that
Peaks would need extremely intense and longer-term treatment, which would be
problematic if he was not motivated to participate in the treatment. In the past, Peaks had
not cooperated and had not been willing to acknowledge his issues, which Dr. Fujimura
explained would make successful treatment extremely difficult. According to Dr. Fujimura,
the problem was not that services were unavailable to Peaks, but whether he would be
receptive or willing to participate in that treatment. Despite all the services he had received
over the years, Peaks’s behavior escalated in frequency and severity.
{¶ 22} According to Dr. Fujimura, Peaks wanted to gratify his own needs, regardless
of the impact on other people. The proximity of Peaks to the victims of his offenses rose to
a level of a blatant willingness to transgress social norms and disregard the rights of others.
Although Dr. Fujimura believed there were programs that could address some of Peaks’s
issues, he would have to be receptive to those services. However, he had demonstrated
that in spite of all the services provided to him, he had not improved much.
{¶ 23} While Dr. Fujimura acknowledged that Peaks stated he felt disappointed and
that he had let his family down by getting criminal charges, she noted that Peaks tended to
-9-
talk about how it affected him rather than the victims. She perceived that Peaks’s behaviors
were not consistent with someone who was genuinely remorseful and wanted to make things
better. Dr. Fujimura explained that whenever Peaks was presented with the proverbial fork
in the road, he seemed to go in the negative direction.
{¶ 24} Following the State’s presentation of evidence, forensic psychologist Dr.
Barbara Bergman testified for the defense. Dr. Bergman was retired and in private practice.
She had previously worked at Summit Behavioral Healthcare in the restoration to
competency unit for adult males. Dr. Bergman had evaluated Peaks during a 2½ hour
interview. She conducted both a risk assessment and mental evaluation. Dr. Bergman
used the Risk-Sophistication-Treatment-Interview (“RSTI”) format to evaluate Peaks, which
consisted of a booklet of questions. In doing her evaluation, she did not take into account
the two aggravated robberies that occurred on January 23, 2022, or the aggravated robbery
from January 25, 2022. She did not speak with the guardian ad litem, any parent or
guardian of Peaks, his probation officer, or his most recent psychologist, Jones. While Dr.
Bergman considered Peaks’s history of treatment with South Community, she did not take
into account that he started treatment in early 2015.
{¶ 25} Dr. Bergman saw evidence of conduct disorder and cannabis abuse, but she
did not see evidence of ADHD or PTSD. Dr. Bergman stated Peaks’s conduct disorder was
adolescent onset, even though there was evidence of conduct disorder before the age of
10. Dr. Bergman acknowledged that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (“DSM”) recognized the diagnosis of childhood onset if symptoms appeared
before the age of 10, but Dr. Bergman stated that she would not diagnose anyone with
conduct disorder at 8 years old. Dr. Bergman further acknowledged that the DSM
recognized that if there was a diagnosis of conduct disorder, childhood onset, there was a
-10-
greater likelihood that the behavior would continue into adulthood.
{¶ 26} Dr. Bergman determined that Peaks was of average intelligence and had not
been working up to his capacity or grade level before being committed to the juvenile
detention center. Since being detained, Peaks had improved academically, but Dr.
Bergman also assumed that was because he had no choice but to attend school while in
detention. Dr. Bergman did not see improvement otherwise, as Peaks was still getting into
fights, cursing, and breaking the rules.
{¶ 27} Dr. Bergman testified that Peaks’s family was “disorganized,” with his mother
living in a nursing home and his father and older brother in prison. Peaks had been placed
in foster care and a group home growing up and with an aunt as his guardian prior to his
detention. Although Peaks’s aunt was a “pro-social” person, there were a lot of kids in the
house, and Peaks did not get the supervision and structure he needed. Peaks had
informed Dr. Bergman that he had many friends when he was younger and did not get into
trouble with them, but that as he reached adolescence, he developed social relationships
with kids who acted out.
{¶ 28} According to Dr. Bergman, Peaks had no significant violent history prior to the
events of January 26, 2022, and Peaks did not perceive his behavior as escalating. Peaks
told her that he was sad he had caused fear and damage because of his violent behavior.
He also was sorry that he had let his family down. Peaks was able to verbalize
responsibility for bad behaviors and took full responsibility for what he did. Dr. Bergman
felt that Peaks was being genuine and honest.
{¶ 29} Dr. Bergman stated that Peaks was very impulsive and did not consider
consequences before acting. She also stated that Peaks had great difficulty controlling his
anger and keeping his behavior within appropriate limits. Although Peaks had received
-11-
treatment previously, he had not received enough treatment and may not have been
engaging in the treatment.
{¶ 30} Dr. Bergman identified a few typos in her report, including an error in the
sophistication and maturity section where she rated Peaks’s cognitive capacity at a six; she
testified it should have been a five, but that change did not affect Peaks’s cognitive capacity,
which was in the middle range. Dr. Bergman also testified that under the emotional maturity
section, the rating in her report was two, which she testified should have been one. The
changes resulted in Peaks’s sophistication and maturity level being reduced from middle or
moderate to a low range compared to other juveniles.
{¶ 31} Dr. Bergman testified that Peaks was in the middle range for the risk of
dangerousness. She explained that Peaks scored high in violent and aggressive
tendencies, while his extensive criminality and psychopathic features were in the middle
range. Peaks ranked high for antisocial behavior, unprovoked violent behavior, and
premeditated crimes. The total scores indicated a “middle, moderate” amenability to
treatment. In her opinion, Peaks was amenable to treatment in the juvenile system and five
years would be enough time at the Ohio Department of Youth Services to make significant
progress.
{¶ 32} On September 6, 2023, the trial court granted the State’s motions to transfer
jurisdiction of Peaks’s cases to the general division of the Montgomery County Court of
Common Pleas for criminal prosecution as an adult. The court found that Peaks was not
amenable to care or rehabilitation within the juvenile system in either of his cases and that
the safety of the community required that Peaks be subject to adult sanctions.
{¶ 33} On September 20, 2023, a Montgomery County grand jury indicted Peaks on
four counts of murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B), unclassified felonies; six counts of
-12-
aggravated robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), felonies of the first degree; one count
of felonious assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), a felony of the second degree; one
count of felonious assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), a felony of the second degree;
one count of tampering with evidence, in violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), a felony of the third
degree; and four counts of grand theft of a motor vehicle, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1),
felonies of the fourth degree. Except for grand theft of a motor vehicle and tampering with
evidence, all of the counts had three-year firearm specifications attached.
{¶ 34} On July 9, 2024, Peaks entered a guilty plea as charged with no agreement
on sentencing. The trial court found him guilty and ordered a presentence investigation
report. At sentencing, the trial court merged each grand theft offense with the
corresponding aggravated robbery count, merged the felonious assaults into the
corresponding murder counts, and merged the murder charges into a single murder count.
The trial court then imposed an indefinite sentence of 6 to 9 years in prison for each
aggravated robbery, with a three-year firearm specification on each, but all the aggravated
robbery counts and those firearm specifications were ordered to run concurrently with each
other and concurrently with a 3-year prison term for tampering with evidence. The court
imposed an indefinite prison term of 15 years to life on the murder, to run consecutively to
all the other charges and specifications. The 3-year firearm specification on the murder
charge was likewise ordered to be served consecutively to all other charges and
specifications. Thus, the aggregate sentence was 27 years to life in prison.
{¶ 35} Peaks timely appealed.
II. Amenability
{¶ 36} Parks raises the following assignment of error:
THE JUVENILE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT BOUND
-13-
PEAKS OVER TO THE COMMON PLEAS COURT FOR PROSECUTION.
{¶ 37} A juvenile court's amenability determination is reviewed under an abuse-of-
discretion standard. State v. Howard, 2018-Ohio-1863, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.), citing In re M.P.,
2010-Ohio-599, ¶ 14, and State v. Watson,
47 Ohio St.3d 93, 95 (1989). An abuse of
discretion is “an attitude that is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” AAAA Ents.,
Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp.,
50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 (1990),
citing Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc.,
19 Ohio St.3d 83, 87 (1985).
{¶ 38} “Juvenile courts possess exclusive jurisdiction over children alleged to be
delinquent for committing acts that would constitute a crime if committed by an adult.” In re
M.P. at ¶ 11, citing R.C. 2151.23(A). “Under specified circumstances, however, a juvenile
may be subject to a mandatory or discretionary transfer, also referred to as a ‘bindover
procedure,’ from the juvenile court setting to adult court for criminal prosecution.” State v.
Walker, 2024-Ohio-729, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.). “Whether an alleged offender is subject to
mandatory or discretionary transfer depends on such factors as the nature of the offense,
the age of the child, and the child's prior criminal history, if any.” Steele v. Harris, 2020-
Ohio-5480, ¶ 10.
{¶ 39} If a child was 14 years of age or older at the time of the alleged act and the act
alleged would constitute a felony if committed by an adult, the juvenile court may transfer its
jurisdiction to the appropriate adult court for criminal prosecution so long as certain criteria
are met. R.C. 2152.12(B). In order to grant a discretionary transfer, the juvenile court
must first find: (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 charged; 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)-
-14-
(3).
{¶ 40} In this case, there is no dispute that Peaks satisfied the age and probable
cause requirements set forth in R.C. 2152.12(B)(1) and (2). The only issue is whether the
trial court abused its discretion in determining that Peaks was not amenable to care or
rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system.
{¶ 41} “Before ordering a discretionary transfer, the juvenile court must conduct an
amenability hearing.” Steele, 2020-Ohio-5480, at ¶ 11, citing State v. D.W., 2012-Ohio-
4544, ¶ 10-12; R.C. 2152.12(B). “An amenability hearing helps determine whether a
juvenile who is eligible for discretionary bindover will be transferred to adult court.” D.W. at
¶ 12. Prior to the hearing, the juvenile court must order an “investigation into the child's
social history, education, family situation, and any other factor bearing on whether the child
is amenable to juvenile rehabilitation, including a mental examination of the child by a public
or private agency or a person qualified to make the examination.” R.C. 2152.12(C). See
also Juv.R. 30(C). In making the amenability determination under R.C. 2152.12(B), the
juvenile court must weigh the statutory factors in R.C. 2152.12(D) in favor of transfer against
the statutory factors in R.C. 2152.12(E) against transfer. State v. Nicholas, 2022-Ohio-
4276, ¶ 5. In addition, the court must indicate on the record the specific factors it weighed
in making its determination.
Id., citing R.C. 2152.12(B)(3).
{¶ 42} “Because the statutory scheme does not dictate how much weight should be
given to any specific factor, the ultimate decision rests in the discretion of the juvenile court.”
State v. Bryant, 2024-Ohio-1192, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.). “[A] juvenile court's decision to exercise
its discretion to transfer a juvenile to adult court must be supported by a preponderance of
the evidence.” Nicholas at ¶ 35. “[A] preponderance of evidence means the greater
weight of evidence.” Travelers’ Ins. Co. of Hartford, Connecticut v. Gath,
118 Ohio St. 257,
-15-
261 (1928). “ ‘The greater weight may be infinitesimal, and it is only necessary that it be
sufficient to destroy the equilibrium.’ ” State v. Stumpf, 32 Ohio St.3d 95, 102 (1987),
quoting
Gath at 261.
{¶ 43} Pursuant to R.C. 2152.12(D), in addition to any other relevant factors, the trial
court must consider the following factors that weigh in favor of transferring the case to the
general division of the common pleas court:
(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.
-16-
(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.
{¶ 44} Pursuant to R.C. 2152.12(E), in addition to any other relevant factors, the trial
court must consider the following factors that weigh against transferring the case to the
general division of the common pleas court:
(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.
{¶ 45} Peaks argues that Dr. Bergman believed he was amenable to rehabilitation in
the juvenile system, and therefore the trial court should have found that he was amenable
-17-
and denied the State’s motions to transfer him. He highlights that his diagnoses were all
treatable, and he was willing to engage in treatment, expressed educational goals and a
desire to start his own business, showed improvement while in juvenile detention, and
expressed remorse about the harm to the victims.
{¶ 46} Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we cannot conclude that the trial court
abused its discretion in finding Peaks was not amenable to care and rehabilitation in the
juvenile justice system or in transferring jurisdiction. The court considered and weighed the
appropriate statutory factors listed in R.C. 2152.12(D) and (E), and the record supported the
court's findings.
{¶ 47} Following the amenability hearing, the trial court found that Peaks was not
amenable to care or rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system and that the safety of the
community required that Peaks be subject to adult sanctions. Therefore, the trial court
granted the State’s motions to transfer Peaks’s cases to the adult court. In finding that
Peaks was not amenable, the court found several factors that weighed in favor of transfer
and no factors that weighed against transfer. Specifically, the court found that R.C.
2152.12(D) factors (1), (4), (5), (7), (8), and (9) favored transfer.
{¶ 48} Under R.C. 2152.12(D)(1), the juvenile court found that several victims
suffered physical or psychological harm or serious economic harm as a result of the alleged
acts. This finding was supported by the record: four of the drivers had been threatened and
robbed at gunpoint of various personal possessions, and they all had their vehicles stolen.
All the victims had used their vehicles for employment purposes and were affected by the
thefts of their vehicles. In particular, B.C. was shot and killed in an attempted robbery of
his vehicle and ultimately crashed it after being shot.
{¶ 49} Under R.C. 2152.12(D)(4), the juvenile court noted that Peaks had allegedly
-18-
committed the acts charged for hire or as a part of a gang or other organized criminal activity.
The record reflects that Peaks was known to associate with members of a gang known as
the “Hot Boys” or “Upway,” which had a history of engaging in criminal activity. Peaks told
Dr. Fujimura that he and his co-offenders had formed the “Upway” gang, but then he
described it as a “little clique” rather than a gang. State’s Ex. 15, p. 4.2 Detective Woody
discussed her familiarity with the “Hot Boys” or “Upway” gang at the amenability hearing,
and she identified the founding member, who had had multiple communications with Peaks.
Peaks referred to himself as a “hot boy,” and one of his social media subscriber names was
“upwaytylan.” During the course of his January crime spree, Peaks repeatedly had
discussions with his co-offenders and other members of the gang about stealing cars,
committing thefts, and obtaining guns, ammunition, and drugs. The attacks were planned
and organized among the co-offenders, sometimes with the offenders agreeing to split the
profits of the robberies among themselves. Unlike the other co-offenders, Peaks personally
participated in all five of the armed robberies. Although Peaks denied being a member of
a gang, he made statements that he liked the “sense of family” that gangs provided him, and
he was reprimanded in the detention facility for making hand gestures and signs classified
as gang signs. Court Investigation Report, p. 1-2.
{¶ 50} Under R.C. 2152.12(D)(5), the juvenile court found that Peaks had a firearm
on or about his person or under his control at the time of the act charged and allegedly used
or displayed the firearm, brandished the firearm, or indicated that he possessed a firearm.
All the victims were robbed at gunpoint, and B.C. was killed by gunfire. Based on co-
offender D.P.’s testimony, Peaks was in possession of and brandished a firearm during the
2 The State’s exhibits at the amenability hearing were duplicated and submitted in each of
the two cases. This opinion cites the exhibits as numbered in Case No. 2023-000124.
-19-
three robberies in which D.P. was involved. Court’s Exhibit 1, Stipulation 10. The records
from Peaks’s social media accounts and Detective Woody’s testimony further reflected that
during the relevant time frame, Peaks was in possession of a firearm, requested ammunition
from other sources, and posted videos of himself in possession of a firearm. One video,
taken less than two hours before the robbery of T.G. and three hours before the robbery-
murder of B.C., recorded Peaks and his cohorts in a bedroom at 322 Anna Street with
multiple guns, one of which was fired off inside the house. The video showed Peaks and
another co-offender displaying handguns. During the carjacking of T.G., two of the
juveniles brandished firearms. After B.C. was killed by multiple gun shots, Peaks and the
other three individuals involved in the robberies were discovered at 322 Anna Street. The
gun that was later determined to have killed B.C. was recovered from 322 Anna Street during
the execution of a search warrant.
{¶ 51} Under R.C. 2152.12(D)(7), the juvenile court found that the results of previous
juvenile sanctions and programs indicated that Peaks could not be rehabilitated in the
juvenile system. Peaks first became involved in the juvenile court system in 2017 at the
age of 10, and he participated in the 10 and Under program through the juvenile court at that
time. In 2019, Peaks was adjudicated delinquent for making false alarms when he
threatened to shoot up his school. Peaks was placed on probation and linked with multiple
services, which the probation officer was able to continue for a year beyond the completion
of Peaks’s probationary period. Peaks also was charged with being unruly in 2019 and with
aggravated trespassing in January 2022, just days before the offenses in this case were
committed. Peaks informed Dr. Fujimura that he had learned nothing from being on
probation. Peaks also told his probation officer that “he will do what he wants and does not
care about what he is being told to do.” Tr. 81.
-20-
{¶ 52} In addition to probation, Peaks had received various services and counseling
since the age of eight. Peaks continued to receive treatment and counseling while at the
detention facility. Nevertheless, both doctors opined that Peaks had not made much
improvement over the years. In detention, Peaks had received numerous disciplinary
reports and was noted to be a “ring leader that stirs up conflict.”
{¶ 53} Under R.C. 2152.12(D)(8), the juvenile court found that Peaks was
emotionally, physically, and psychologically mature enough for the transfer. Peaks was
described as tall and appeared his age. Both Drs. Bergman and Fujimura agreed that
Peaks was of average intelligence and did not have any intellectual disabilities. Rather,
Peaks’s poor performance in school was the result of a lack of attendance and behavioral
issues, as evidenced by his ability to obtain As and Bs while in the detention facility.
According to Dr. Bergman, Peaks understood the difference between right and wrong.
Peaks was able to identify negative effects of his behavior on family, the victims, and the
community. Counselor Hall noted that Peaks “was able to identify what makes him angry
and to talk about his behavioral responses.” State’s Ex. 15, p 6.
{¶ 54} Under R.C. 2152.12(D)(9), the juvenile court found that there was not sufficient
time to rehabilitate Peaks within the juvenile system. At the time of the amenability hearing,
Peaks was approximately 16½ years old. Because Peaks could only remain in the juvenile
system until his 21st birthday, the court would have had approximately 4½ years to
rehabilitate him. The trial court found that this was not sufficient time to rehabilitate Peaks
within the juvenile system.
{¶ 55} Although Dr. Bergman ultimately concluded that Peaks was amenable to care
or rehabilitation in the juvenile system, the trial court was not required to agree with her
conclusion and reasonably credited Dr. Fujimura’s opinion over Dr. Bergman’s. “[T]he
-21-
juvenile court was free to assign any weight to the psychologist's opinion that the court
deemed appropriate.” State v. Davis, 2010-Ohio-3782, ¶ 21 (4th Dist.). Notably, although
Dr. Bergman concluded that Peaks was amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile system,
her testimony regarding Peaks was not favorable.
{¶ 56} Dr. Bergman testified that Peaks had been diagnosed with conduct disorder,
cannabis abuse, PTSD, and ADHD. Although Dr. Bergman readily agreed with the
diagnoses for conduct disorder and cannabis abuse, she observed no behaviors related to
PTSD or ADHD. Even so, all of Peaks’s diagnoses were generally considered treatable by
both Drs. Bergman and Fujimura. The fact that Peaks had already been in treatment for
several years and had not improved was significant. One of the factors upon which Dr.
Bergman relied in concluding that Peaks was amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile
system was that she found Peaks’s criminally delinquent behaviors had begun during early
adolescence. Dr. Bergman acknowledged during cross-examination that the DSM
recognized a diagnosis of conduct disorder, childhood onset as being an onset of symptoms
prior to age 10. Although Dr. Bergman was aware that Hall stated Peaks met the criteria
for conduct disorder with childhood onset, and Dr. Bergman agreed that Peaks’s symptoms
of conduct disorder were documented as early as the age of 8, Dr. Bergman stated that she
would not diagnose anyone with conduct disorder at that age. Nevertheless, both Drs.
Bergman and Fujimura acknowledged that early onset conduct disorder (before the age of
10) was more difficult to treat than if it were developed later in life, and there was a greater
likelihood of the behavior continuing into adulthood. Dr. Fujimura explained that the earlier
the symptoms appeared and the longer the symptoms occurred, the more difficult such a
disorder would be to treat because of its ingrained nature. Dr. Fujimura opined that Peaks’s
“long-standing history of an unabashed endorsement of criminally-minded thinking seems
-22-
to be deeply engrained and highly resistant to treatment intervention.” State’s Ex. 15, p.
17.
{¶ 57} Drs. Bergman and Fujimura agreed that Peaks had improved academically
since he had been in detention, but they also agreed that Peaks had not made much
progress otherwise during that time. Dr. Bergman testified that other than Peaks’s
academics, she had not seen improvement, considering that Peaks was still fighting,
cursing, and breaking rules. While in detention, Peaks had threatened a staff member that
he would catch her leaving work and “smoke her ass and [another youth] like he did the
Uber driver.” State’s Ex. 15, p. 9. He also threatened to kill staff and others on multiple
occasions.
{¶ 58} Dr. Bergman testified that Peaks said he was sad that he had caused damage
and fear because of his violent behavior. He stated he was sorry that he let his family down
and that he was locked up. Dr. Bergman found that Peaks was able to verbalize
responsibility for bad behaviors and took full responsibility for what he did. Although Dr.
Bergman believed Peaks was genuine and honest, Dr. Fujimura did not. Rather, Dr.
Fujimura believed Peaks did not demonstrate genuine remorse and was instead trying to
look good to get what he wanted. Dr. Fujimura stated that Peaks tended to deny or
minimize problematic issues, to focus on how his actions affected him rather than the
victims, and to demonstrate manipulative behaviors.
{¶ 59} Dr. Bergman classified Peaks as “middle moderate amenability to treatment.”
According to Bergman, because Peaks scored in the middle, it “could go either way,” but
she ultimately concluded that Peaks was amenable. Although Dr. Bergman believed that,
during the year and a half that Peaks had received mental health treatment while in
detention, he had not made great progress, she also believed that 4½ years would be
-23-
“enough time to make significant progress if [Peaks] engages.” (Emphasis added.) Tr.
179. She scored Peaks high for having violent and aggressive tendencies and in the middle
range for planned and extensive criminality and psychopathic features. She noted that
Peaks had great difficulty controlling his anger and keeping his behavior within appropriate
limits. She testified that Peaks was very impulsive and did not think about consequences
before acting. In forming her opinion that Peaks was amenable to care or rehabilitation
within the juvenile system, she had been unaware of the two aggravated robberies that
occurred on January 23, 2022, and the aggravated robbery on January 25, 2022. Dr.
Bergman did not speak with the guardian ad litem, any parent or guardian of Peaks, Peaks’s
probation officer, or his most recent psychologist, Jones. While Dr. Bergman considered
Peaks’s history of treatment with South Community, she did not take into account that he
had started treatment in 2015, with his initial diagnostic assessment on January 27, 2015.
{¶ 60} Dr. Fujimura, on the other hand, opined that Peaks would need extremely
intense and long-term treatment, which would be problematic if he were not motivated to
participate in the treatment. In her opinion, Peaks had demonstrated that he would not
cooperate with treatment, and he had not been willing to acknowledge his issues, which
would make treatment extremely difficult. As Dr. Fujimura stated in her updated report,
Peaks had “developed a highly consistent pattern of engaging in antisocial, aggressive,
manipulative, bullying, threatening, and defiant behaviors.” State’s Ex. 19, p. 14. “The
escalation in frequency and intensity of dangerousness associated with many of [Peaks’s]
choices has shown blatant resistance to genuine improvement in pro-social actions in spite
of long-standing, intensive, collaborative intervention.” Id.
{¶ 61} The record reflects that the juvenile court carefully considered the R.C.
2152.12(D) and (E) factors weighing for and against transferring Peaks’s cases to the
-24-
general division for adult prosecution. The record supports the juvenile court's conclusions
regarding the relevant R.C. 2152.12(D) and (E) factors and the court's ultimate conclusion
to transfer Peaks’s cases to the general division for adult prosecution. We cannot conclude
that the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering the bindover of Peaks’s cases.
Peaks’s assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 62} Having overruled Peaks’s assignment of error, we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
.............
TUCKER, J. and HANSEMAN, J., concur.
