In re A.B.
2020 Ohio 3904
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Juvenile A.B. admitted a probation violation (left Hamilton County) in case No. 18-0841 and admitted two counts of grand theft in Warren County; Warren County adjudications were transferred to Hamilton County.
- At a February 26, 2019 detention/disposition-status hearing the magistrate relied on a psychological evaluation prepared by the Hamilton County Department of Probation and ordered A.B. detained pending disposition.
- A.B.’s counsel orally requested a copy of the psychological report at the February 26 hearing; the magistrate denied the request but said the report would be made available; counsel reviewed the report after the hearing.
- At subsequent hearings (March 12 and March 14, 2019) the court considered probation’s recommendation of residential placement, denied a written “Request to Release Psychological Report,” and placed A.B. on probation with an order to complete a residential program.
- A.B. appealed, raising three assignments: (1) court violated R.C. 2317.39 and due process by considering the psychological evaluation without prior notice or making it available; (2) court erred by denying a copy of the evaluation used at disposition; (3) denial violated A.B.’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
- The First District dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction under the mootness/justiciability doctrine, concluding A.B. sought only procedural relief and did not challenge the adjudications or disposition such that the court could grant meaningful relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court erred by considering a psychological evaluation without providing notice or copies before use | A.B.: court used the evaluation at the Feb. 26 hearing without notice and denied counsel a copy | Court/State: report was made available to counsel (she reviewed it after hearing); A.B. did not seek to overturn adjudication or disposition | Dismissed as nonjusticiable/moot; no meaningful relief available |
| Whether the court erred in denying a copy of the psychological evaluation used at disposition | A.B.: she was entitled to a copy and the court erred by denying the request | Court/State: procedural posture does not allow relief on this collateral complaint | Dismissed as nonjusticiable/moot |
| Whether denial of the report violated A.B.’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel | A.B.: counsel was deprived of materials necessary for effective representation | Court/State: A.B. did not challenge disposition or adjudication on appeal, so appellate relief is not available | Dismissed for lack of a justiciable controversy; no jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwab v. Lattimore, 166 Ohio App.3d 12 (1st Dist. 2006) (mootness doctrine bars advisory opinions)
- Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237 (Ohio 1910) (courts should not decide questions that cannot affect the parties)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Heath, 121 Ohio St.3d 165 (Ohio 2009) (standard for cases capable of repetition yet evading review)
- Lakewood v. Papadelis, 32 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1987) (appellate review of juvenile disposition when relief may still be obtained)
- Cleveland v. Mathis, 136 Ohio App.3d 41 (8th Dist. 1999) (juvenile disposition review principles)