In re B.C.
2022 Ohio 1298
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Juvenile complaint charged B.C. with two counts of rape and one count of gross sexual imposition; B.C. admitted to one count of rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b)) and the other counts were dismissed.
- At disposition, the probation officer and prosecutor recommended commitment to the Department of Youth Services (DYS) with sex-offender treatment at Paint Creek; defense had no objection on the record.
- The juvenile court committed B.C. to DYS custody for a minimum of 12 months and a maximum not to exceed age 21, recommended Paint Creek treatment, and stated B.C. would be placed on community control "including probation" upon release; the journal entry committed to DYS and placed B.C. "on probation until further order of the Court."
- B.C. appealed, arguing (1) the dispositional order was void because a court cannot both commit a child to DYS and place the child on court-supervised probation, (2) the juvenile court abused its discretion by imposing both dispositions in light of R.C. 2152.19 and 2152.22, and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object.
- The State argued B.C. forfeited the statutory objections by not raising them below, that juvenile courts have broad dispositional discretion (including imposing probation in addition to other dispositions), and that the parties had negotiated the disposition.
- The appellate court rejected B.C.’s arguments, applied plain-error review to the forfeited issues, and affirmed the juvenile court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (B.C.) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court may both commit to DYS and place child on court-supervised probation | Juvenile statutes preclude a court from imposing probation after committing a child to DYS; such an order is void | Juvenile court has statutory authority to impose probation as a community-control condition in addition to other dispositions under R.C. 2152.19 | Court: Order is not void; statutes permit a DYS commitment followed by court supervision in appropriate circumstances (affirmed) |
| Whether R.C. 2152.22 (specific) overrides R.C. 2152.19 (general) to bar court-supervised probation upon DYS commitment | R.C. 2152.22 relinquishes court control to DYS and limits releases to DYS supervision except narrow exceptions; thus probation conflicts and is barred | R.C. 2152.19 expressly allows probation “in addition to any other disposition,” and R.C. 2152.22(D)(2) permits judicial release to court supervision when release occurs after prescribed minimum term | Court: No obvious statutory conflict; R.C. 2152.22(D)(2) authorizes judicial release to court supervision after minimum term, so ordering probation upon release is permissible |
| Whether B.C. forfeited the statutory challenge and is limited to plain-error review on appeal | Objected that order was void (but did not do so in trial court) | Forfeiture applies; appellant did not object below so plain-error standard governs | Court: B.C. forfeited; plain-error not shown because no obvious error or manifest injustice; affirmed |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the dual disposition | Counsel was ineffective for not objecting; had counsel objected, court might have imposed only one sanction | Even if counsel erred, result likely the same because statutes permit the disposition; no reasonable probability of a different outcome | Court: No ineffective assistance shown (no prejudice); affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Henderson, 162 N.E.3d 776 (Ohio 2020) (sentence is void only if court lacked subject-matter or personal jurisdiction)
- State v. Harper, 159 N.E.3d 248 (Ohio 2020) (same rule limiting void-sentence doctrine)
- In re D.S., 71 N.E.3d 223 (Ohio 2016) (juvenile courts have broad dispositional discretion focused on rehabilitation)
- In re Caldwell, 666 N.E.2d 1367 (Ohio 1996) (purpose of juvenile dispositional statutes is rehabilitation and court flexibility)
- In re Anderson, 748 N.E.2d 67 (Ohio 2001) (juvenile system’s rehabilitative focus and flexible decision-making)
- State v. Barnes, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (Ohio 2002) (plain-error doctrine and caution in noticing plain error)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- State v. LaRosa, 179 N.E.3d 89 (Ohio 2021) (plain-error standard described and applied)
- State v. Jones, 156 N.E.3d 872 (Ohio 2020) (appellate plain-error review in juvenile delinquency appeals)