2019 Ohio 2558
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Juvenile A.S. was adjudicated delinquent in two cases: a 2016 burglary (C-180045) and a 2017 receiving stolen property (RSP) with a firearm specification (C-180046); both carried suspended DYS commitments and probation.
- A.S. was placed at Abraxas Youth Center, a residential behavioral-health placement.
- The state filed a probation-violation complaint only in the burglary case, alleging A.S. absconded from Abraxas; A.S. admitted the violation at a hearing before disposition.
- At disposition the court imposed consecutive DYS commitments in both the burglary and the RSP cases (the latter without a motion or probation-violation hearing in that case).
- A.S. sought credit toward his DYS minimum for time spent at Abraxas; the juvenile court held Abraxas was not "confinement." A.S. appealed challenging (1) procedural/due-process compliance under Juv.R. 29 and 35, (2) adequacy of advisement of consequences of his admission, and (3) denial of confinement credit for Abraxas time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (A.S.) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revoking probation in the RSP case without a motion or Juv.R. 29/35 procedures violated due process | The court revoked probation in RSP without a Juv.R. 35 motion or Juv.R. 29 advisements, violating due process | The court could impose suspended commitments in both cases after A.S. admitted the probation violation in the burglary case | Reversed as to the RSP case: revocation there violated Juv.R. 29 and 35; judgment vacated in C-180046 |
| Whether the court erred under Juv.R. 35 by not affirmatively finding A.S. had received written notice of probation conditions in the burglary case | Revocation is invalid unless the court affirmatively finds the juvenile received written notice per Juv.R. 34/35 | The record shows A.S. signed the probation conditions, admitted absconding, and never claimed lack of notice | Affirmed revocation in the burglary case (C-180045); no due-process violation on notice grounds because record showed signed conditions and admission |
| Whether A.S.’s admission to the probation violation was not knowing/voluntary because he was not told admission could trigger revocation in the separate RSP case | Court should have advised that admitting could lead to revocations in other cases not before the court | Because no Juv.R. 35 motion was filed in the RSP case, the court had no duty to advise about consequences in a separate case; the magistrate did advise about DYS exposure in the burglary case | Overruled: admission to burglary-case violation was knowing and voluntary as to that case; no obligation to warn about unrelated case not before the court |
| Whether time spent at Abraxas qualifies as "confined" for R.C. 2152.18(B) credit toward the DYS minimum | Abraxas imposes security and staff control similar to other residential placements; time there should be credited | The juvenile court found Abraxas was not sufficiently restrictive to constitute confinement | Reversed as to confinement credit: Abraxas was found to constitute confinement; remanded to recalculate credit and reduce DYS minimum accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.V., 134 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2012) (juveniles entitled to due process in delinquency proceedings)
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1966) (due-process essentials in juvenile waiver/delinquency context)
- In re L.A.B., 121 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio 2009) (Juv.R. 29 governs adjudicatory/probation-revocation hearings)
- In re C.S., 115 Ohio St.3d 267 (Ohio 2007) (Juv.R. 29(D) and standard for substantial compliance with juvenile admissions)
- State v. Napier, 93 Ohio St.3d 646 (Ohio 2001) (adult confinement factors used to assess custody/restriction for credit determinations)
- In re T.W., 66 N.E.3d 93 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016) (application of confinement factors to juvenile residential placements)