In re D.B.
2012 Ohio 2505
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- D.B., a minor, was adjudicated delinquent for burglary and placed on probation with a DYS commitment for a minimum of one year.
- He repeatedly violated probation and parole, leading to multiple recommitments to DYS between 2009 and 2011.
- In September 2011, as part of a disposition, the trial court ordered D.B. to be returned to DYS custody for not less than 90 days or until completing a specialized release program.
- D.B. challenged the dispositional order, arguing the hearing and commitment were governed by the wrong statutory provisions (2152.22 vs 5139.52).
- The magistrate’s decision and the trial court’s adoption proceeded despite D.B. not objecting to the magistrate’s decision, limiting review to plain error.
- The appellate court ultimately overruled the assignments of error, holding no plain error occurred and the 90-day commitment was permissible under the statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory basis for disposition on revocation | D.B. argues disposition should be under 5139.52, not 2152.22. | State contends release/retainment falls under 2152.22 due to judicial release to DYS supervision. | No plain error; 5139.52 applicable despite hearing under 2152.22. |
| Authority for 90-day minimum commitment | Minimum under 30 days only; 90 days exceeds statutory limit. | Court may impose any disposition authorized by law beyond the 30-day minimum. | 90-day commitment permissible; statute allows broader dispositions. |
| Effectiveness of counsel for failing to object | Counsel should have objected to the 90-day term as improper. | Counsel reasonably declined to object given court’s discretion and prior opportunities for compliance. | No ineffective assistance; decision upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Z.C., 2006-Ohio-1787 (8th Dist. 2006) (waiver of objections limits review to plain error)
- In re J.T., 2009-Ohio-6224 (8th Dist. 2009) (plain-error standard for waiver of objections)
- In re Caldwell, 76 Ohio St.3d 156 (1996-Ohio-410) (discretion in implementing rehabilitation dispositions)
- In re Samkas, 80 Ohio App.3d 240 (8th Dist. 1992) (trial court discretion in disposition following parole revocation)
- In re T.K., 2012-Ohio-906 (9th Dist. 2012) (no time limit on maximum duration under 5139.52(F))
- In re A.N., 2012-Ohio-1789 (11th Dist. 2012) (minimum 30 days; longer stays permissible after parole revocation)