In re B.P., 2015 Ohio 48

Juvenile complaint alleged B.P. committed acts that, if by an adult, would constitute robbery and aggravated burglary; B.P. admitted the allegations.
Juvenile court adjudicated B.P. delinquent and committed him to the Department of Youth Services for a minimum of one year on each charge, to be served consecutively.
On appeal, B.P. argued (1) the court should have merged the adjudications because the offenses were allied offenses of similar import (double jeopardy issue), and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the merger issue.
The appellate court noted B.P. did not raise the constitutionality of multiple dispositions in the juvenile court, thus forfeiting all but plain error; he also failed to develop a plain-error argument on appeal.
The court rejected the ineffective-assistance claim as conclusory because B.P. offered no developed argument showing deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether adjudications for aggravated burglary and robbery should have been merged as allied offenses (Double Jeopardy)	B.P.: convictions/adjudications were allied offenses of similar import and should merge to avoid double jeopardy	State: court could impose consecutive commitments; issue not timely raised below, so forfeited except for plain error	Court overruled — B.P. forfeited the constitutional challenge by not raising it below and did not present a plain-error argument on appeal
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object on allied-offenses/merger grounds	B.P.: counsel deficient for not raising merger and, but for that, court would have merged adjudications	State: no developed showing of deficient performance or prejudice; claim is conclusory	Court overruled — appellant failed to develop Strickland argument showing deficiency and prejudice

Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (1983) (describing double jeopardy protection against multiple punishments/convictions)
In re Cross, 96 Ohio St.3d 328 (2002) (Fifth Amendment double jeopardy applies in juvenile adjudications)
Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975) (constitutional protections applicable in juvenile proceedings to prevent multiple prosecutions)
In re H.V., 138 Ohio St.3d 408 (2014) (juvenile court may order consecutive commitments)
State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (1986) (standards on forfeiture and appellate review of unpreserved claims)
State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22 (2007) (applying Strickland standard for ineffective assistance in Ohio)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)