In re A.E.
2011 Ohio 4746
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- A.E., a juvenile, was charged by complaint in juvenile court with two counts of gross sexual imposition as to his younger brother.
- Guardian ad Litem filed a Motion to Suppress on July 6, 2010 alleging custodial interrogation and lack of waiver of rights; State responded July 8, 2010.
- Trial court denied the motion July 9, 2010, citing lack of standing, timeliness, and procedural issues; adjudication set for change of plea.
- At adjudication on July 12, 2010, A.E. admitted to both counts; magistrate recommended DYS commitment totaling at least one year.
- Judgment entry on September 3, 2010 adopted the magistrate’s decision; A.E. appealed the rulings on admissibility of admissions, remedies, and suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were A.E.'s admissions knowing, voluntary, and intelligent? | A.E. argues Juv.R. 29(D)(2) not satisfied. | State contends substantial compliance suffices; informed of consequences. | Admissions not knowing, voluntary, intelligent; reversal on this ground. |
| Did the court inform about potential consecutive commitments and the consequences of admission? | A.E. contends failure to explain consecutive terms violated Juv.R. 29(D). | Court informed maximum term; consecutive-terms issue treated by precedent. | Court failed to strictly comply with Juv.R. 29(D)(2) regarding waiver of the right to present evidence; error reversible. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to costs or investigating suppression? | Counsel failed to pursue suppression and objections to costs. | Record insufficient to show prejudice or ineffective assistance. | Ineffective assistance issue overruled as moot due to other reversals. |
| Did Guardian Ad Litem have standing and did the court err in denying the Motion to Suppress? | GAL claims standing under Rule 48(D)(6) and that suppression motion was timely/meritorious. | State contested standing and timeliness on suppression. | Judgment reversed; GAL had standing; suppression hearing required; remanded for merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.S., 115 Ohio St.3d 267 (2007-Ohio-4919) (strict vs. substantial compliance with Juv.R. 29(D) for admissions)
- In re Onion, 128 Ohio App.3d 498 (1998) (per se prejudice for failure to inform critical rights)
- State v. Johnson, 40 Ohio St.3d 130 (1988) (consecutive sentences not rendering guilty plea involuntary)
- In re Caldwell, 76 Ohio St.3d 156 (1996) (juvenile system aims and necessity of hearing suppression when merits shown)