In re B.M., 2013 Ohio 1233

In 2011, juvenile court adjudicated Joseph (16) delinquent for menacing by stalking and placed him on probation.
January 2012, Joseph charged with resisting arrest and probation violations (curfew, meeting with probation officer); found in violation and committed to DYS.
April 2012, Joseph granted judicial release from DYS and placed on supervision.
A few days after release, charged with violating supervision by failing to submit to electronic monitoring and urine sample; adjudicatory hearing held in May 2012 finding violation and ordering immediate return to DYS.
Joseph appealed raising three assignments of error; issue centered on reliance on resisting-arrest finding, allocution rights, and standard of proof.
Court affirmed the adjudication but vacated the disposition and remanded for allocution and further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reliance on resisting-arrest adjudication	Joseph argues court relied on the resisting-arrest adjudication.	State contends no reliance shown on that adjudication or related facts.	First assignment overruled; no clear reliance shown.
Right of allocution before disposition	Joseph asserts no allocution opportunity prior to disposition.	State concedes error; allocution required.	Second assignment sustained; disposition vacated and remanded for allocution.
Standard of proof for findings of violation	Joseph contends incorrect standard used; should be beyond reasonable doubt.	Court used the correct standard; implied by phrasing like 'clearly' and 'without question'.	Third assignment overruled; standard presumed correct; error not found.

In re K.S.J., 2011-Ohio-2064 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2011) (adjudicated delinquent has right of allocution before disposition)
In re Watson, 47 Ohio St.3d 86 (1989) (presumption that trial court applies law correctly; standard of proof context)
In re B.M., 2012-Ohio-6221 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2012) (remand for allocution and clarification of probation-violation basis)