In re A.M.
2020 Ohio 3138
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- While on community control for burglary, A.M. gathered friends and went to his girlfriend’s ex‑boyfriend’s house to provoke a fight; during the brawl a man who intervened was struck in the head and died.
- The State charged A.M. in juvenile court; A.M. admitted to complicity to felonious assault and several related counts.
- The juvenile court adjudicated A.M. delinquent and committed him to the Department of Youth Services for secure confinement for an indefinite term (minimum one year, maximum until age 21) on the complicity to felonious assault count; other counts resulted in letters of apology.
- A.M. appealed, raising four assignments of error: (1) court failed to order/consider a victim impact statement under R.C. 2152.19(D); (2) court failed to consider R.C. 2152.19 factors and ignored his CIP success; (3) court failed to rule on his oral stay‑of‑execution motion; and (4) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to request a continuance.
- The Ninth District affirmed, rejecting each assignment of error and concluding the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion and A.M. failed to show deficient performance or prejudice from counsel’s conduct.
Issues
| Issue | A.M.’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to order/consider victim impact statement (R.C. 2152.19(D)) | Court erred by not ordering a victim impact statement and considering it before disposition. | No timely objection was made at disposition; absence of objection forfeits all but plain error; A.M. did not argue plain error. | Affirmed — no reversible error; A.M. forfeited review and did not raise plain error. |
| 2. Failure to consider R.C. 2152.19 factors / CIP success | Court ignored his substantial compliance with Community Intervention Programming and should have given a lesser disposition. | Court considered the record (initial CIP success then decline, failed drug screen, remands); court may reject probation recommendation and fashion disposition within its broad discretion. | Affirmed — disposition within juvenile court’s broad discretion and consistent with statutory purposes. |
| 3. Failure to rule on oral stay pending appeal (Juv.R. 34(C)) | Court failed to enter an appropriate judgment/ruling on his oral stay, prejudicing appellate review. | Dispositional entry was filed the next day as required by Juv.R. 34(C); oral stay was denied at the hearing and unrebutted presumption is motions not ruled on are deemed overruled. | Affirmed — no error; judgment timely filed; no prejudice shown. |
| 4. Ineffective assistance for not requesting continuance (Juv.R. 23) | Counsel should have moved to continue disposition so court could comply with victim‑impact, judgment entries, and statutory rules. | Decision to request continuance is trial strategy; A.M. cannot show deficient performance or a reasonable probability of a different outcome. | Affirmed — ineffective‑assistance claim fails (no deficient performance or prejudice). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ridenour, 128 Ohio App.3d 134 (9th Dist. 1998) (explains purpose of victim impact statements)
- State v. Patterson, 110 Ohio App.3d 264 (10th Dist. 1996) (failure to order victim impact statement is not reversible absent prejudice)
- State v. Garrison, 123 Ohio App.3d 11 (2d Dist. 1997) (victim impact statement may be unnecessary where record already shows victim impact)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (appellate review limited under abuse of discretion standard)
- In re D.S., 111 Ohio St.3d 361 (2006) (juvenile court discretion in disposition)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (applies Strickland standard in Ohio)
- State v. Unger, 67 Ohio St.2d 65 (1981) (continuance requests are within trial court discretion)