2018 Ohio 364
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Juvenile A.H., age 16, was accused of committing an act that would constitute rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)) against an 11-year-old during a July 2016 youth trip; complaint originated in Lucas County and was transferred to Brown County.
- A competency evaluation was requested by defense counsel; a psychologist evaluated A.H., administered WISA-II (full-scale IQ 89), conducted an interview, and produced a written report concluding A.H. was competent to participate and assist counsel.
- The juvenile court held an abbreviated competency hearing, but made no written competency determination as required by R.C. 2152.58(D)(1).
- On May 30, 2017, the court accepted A.H.’s admission to the rape charge after a brief colloquy that did not fully comply with Juv.R. 29(D) (court did not personally ensure A.H. understood the nature of the allegations, consequences, or rights waived).
- The court adjudicated A.H. delinquent and committed him to the Department of Youth Services; A.H. appealed arguing failures to issue a written competency finding, to obtain proper plea colloquy under Juv.R.29, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court failed to issue a written competency determination under R.C. 2152.58 | A.H.: court violated statute and due process by not making a written competency finding before accepting admission | State: relied on evaluator’s report and defense counsel’s stipulation that report found A.H. competent; court took judicial notice | Reversed: court must issue a written competency determination; failure to do so is reversible error |
| Whether A.H.’s admission was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under Juv.R. 29 | A.H.: colloquy was inadequate; court did not personally determine he understood the nature, consequences, or rights waived | State: contended juvenile, counsel, and prosecutor indicated understanding and voluntariness | Reversed: court did not substantially comply with Juv.R.29; admission not valid absent proper colloquy |
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by stipulating to competency and not objecting to procedural defects | A.H.: counsel should have sought further evaluation and objected to statutory/Juv.R. violations | State: not separately addressed due to resolution of first two issues | Not reached (court vacated adjudication on other grounds) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1966) (establishes principle that incompetent defendants may not be tried)
- State v. Berry, 72 Ohio St.3d 354 (Ohio 1995) (due-process competency principles in Ohio)
- State v. Golphin, 81 Ohio St.3d 543 (Ohio 1998) (use of “shall” in statute denotes mandatory duty)
- In re C.S., 115 Ohio St.3d 267 (Ohio 2007) (juvenile admission analogous to guilty plea; requirement of substantial compliance with Juv.R.29)