YOUNGSTOWN Appeals court refuses to drop teens' charges

Both defendants are juveniles being tried as adults.
By BOB JACKSON
VINDICATOR COURTHOUSE REPORTER
YOUNGSTOWN -- Two teen-age boys accused of severely beating and robbing three people, including an elderly man, have lost a bid to have their charges dismissed.
Their lawyers will now appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.
James Goins and Chad Barnette are both 17 and live on East Indianola Avenue.
A Mahoning County grand jury indicted them in March on charges of attempted aggravated murder, receiving stolen property, two counts of aggravated burglary and felonious assault and three counts of aggravated robbery and kidnapping.
Both juveniles are being tried as adults.
The teens are accused of beating 83-year-old William Sovak and locking him in a fruit cellar at his Miller Street home earlier this year. They are also accused of beating and robbing a Marmion Avenue couple.
Defense argument: Their attorneys, Damian Billak and Mark Lavelle, had asked Judge R. Scott Krichbaum of common pleas court to dismiss the charges, arguing that the boys were improperly bound over from juvenile court.
When the judge denied their motion, Billak and Lavelle took the matter to the 7th District Court of Appeals, asking again for a dismissal of charges and seeking a court order to release the boys from jail.
The appellate court ruled that the time to argue about alleged irregularities in the bindover process from juvenile to common pleas court is after the cases are completed, not before they start. The defense's motion to dismiss the charges was overruled.
The matter is now set for trial Jan. 7 before Judge Krichbaum.
"While we respect the opinions of the trial court and the court of appeals, we do intend to take this case to the Ohio Supreme Court," Billak said.
The teens originally faced identical charges in juvenile court. After a hearing, the juvenile court ruled there was probable cause to bind them over on all but the three kidnapping counts.
The ruling was that because the victims were restrained on their own property, there was no kidnapping.
About kidnapping charge: Because of that, the defense argued that the grand jury should not have returned the kidnapping indictments, but the appellate court ruled that a grand jury has authority to indict on any charges it deems appropriate.
The appellate judges said, though, that problems can arise when a grand jury indicts juveniles for charges not bound over from juvenile court because conflicting prosecutions in both courts can occur.
"In this case, the juvenile court specifically found no probable cause to support the kidnapping," the appellate ruling says.
"The state should further research the issue and determine if it wishes to proceed on the kidnapping or whether it should re-present those charges to the juvenile court."
Assistant Prosecutor Timothy Franken said he had not seen the appellate decision so could not comment.
bjackson@vindy.com