In re A.M.
2017 Ohio 7624
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- A.M., adjudicated delinquent in two juvenile cases (statutory rape and theft), was placed on probation with suspended DYS commitments and ordered to complete residential treatment.
- After termination from Paint Creek, A.M. was placed at Abraxas Ohio Residential Treatment Center from Nov. 2, 2015 to Mar. 11, 2016.
- The juvenile court revoked probation and imposed the suspended DYS commitments, giving A.M. credit for time at Hamilton County Youth Center and Paint Creek but denying credit for 131 days at Abraxas.
- A.M. sought a hearing and confinement credit under R.C. 2152.18(B) for time at Abraxas; the court denied the hearing and ruled Abraxas was not confinement.
- The appellate court found the juvenile court made no factual findings or take evidence about the nature of Abraxas or the restrictions on A.M., preventing meaningful appellate review.
- The court reversed and remanded for development of the record and findings consistent with this court’s confinement-credit guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.M. was entitled to a hearing/evidence development on confinement-credit for time at Abraxas under R.C. 2152.18(B) | A.M.: juvenile court must hold a hearing and develop the record on the facility’s nature and restrictions before denying credit | State: court declined to hold a hearing, asserting Abraxas (a residential treatment program) is not confinement and relying on In re T.W. | Court: Reversed — hearing/record development required under In re D.P. guidelines to determine confinement status |
| Whether A.M. was entitled to credit for days at Abraxas | A.M.: days at Abraxas were sufficiently restrictive and should count as "confined" for credit reduction | State: Abraxas is a residential program and, per juvenile court, not equivalent to secure confinement like Hillcrest | Court: Not decided on merits — remanded for factfinding; juvenile court must apply D.P./Napier factors to decide credit eligibility |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Napier, 93 Ohio St.3d 646, 758 N.E.2d 1127 (Ohio 2001) (definition of "confinement" requires examining facility security and personal liberty restrictions)
- In re T.W., 66 N.E.3d 93 (1st Dist. 2016) (affirmed that Hillcrest placements qualified as confinement under D.P. guidelines)