State ex rel. Torres v. Simmons

Appellant argues that prohibition will lie because the order transferring jurisdiction to the “adult division” is facially invalid and, thus, ineffective to vest jurisdiction in such court. The specific basis for appellant’s argument is that the transfer order fails to state the reasons therefor. According to appellant, the Juvenile Court failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Kent v. United States (1966), 383 U. S. 541, and Ohio Juv. R. 30.

Whether the Juvenile Court’s decision to transfer jurisdiction over appellant to the “adult division” was proper under the facts of this case…