In re D.D.
2017 Ohio 9021
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Juvenile complaint filed Aug 16, 2016 alleging D.D. committed offenses on Nov 4, 2015: felonious assault (later amended), criminal activity on school property, inducing panic, and criminal trespass. Complaint listed offense names, statute numbers, street address, and mother’s name/address; sworn under oath.
- Arraignment Sept 19, 2016: reading waived; D.D. pleaded not guilty through counsel. Pretrials held Oct 31 and Dec 12, 2016.
- Feb 27, 2017 adjudicatory hearing: prosecutor orally moved to amend complaint per plea agreement — D.D. to admit to Count 1 (amended to aggravated assault) and Count 4; Counts 2 and 3 to be nolled. Court accepted D.D.’s admissions under Juv.R.29(D).
- Court then noted a perceived defect (complaint omitted the city name). Prosecutor’s oral motion to amend location to include “Cleveland, Ohio, 44111” was denied; court sua sponte dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, citing Juv.R.29(F)(1).
- State appealed as of right under R.C. 2945.67(A). The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding dismissal improper and that the state had a right to appeal because jeopardy had not attached.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | D.D.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State may appeal the juvenile court’s sua sponte dismissal | Rely on R.C. 2945.67(A): state may appeal an order granting dismissal of complaint | D.D.: dismissal after admissions is a final verdict/acquittal precluding state appeal | State may appeal as of right; dismissal was not a final verdict because double jeopardy/jeopardy had not attached |
| Whether juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction given complaint’s omission of city name | Complaint met Juv.R.10(B) and conferred jurisdiction (street address, county indicia, complainant from Cleveland schools, parent address) | Omission of city rendered complaint jurisdictionally defective | Court had jurisdiction; omission of city did not defeat jurisdiction |
| Whether court properly dismissed after accepting admissions under Juv.R.29 | Dismissal under Juv.R.29(F)(1) was improper because admissions were accepted; only Juv.R.29(F)(2) options available after admissions | D.D.: prior case law treats some dismissals after admissions as final verdicts and limits appeals (double jeopardy concerns) | Dismissal violated Juv.R.29: after admissions court could only follow F(2)(a)-(d); sua sponte dismissal under F(1) was improper |
| Whether dismissal implicated double jeopardy, barring State’s appeal | State: dismissal was based on legal defect, not factual insufficiency, so jeopardy did not attach | D.D.: prior cases show dismissals after admissions can be final acquittals preventing appeal | Jeopardy did not attach (no evidence hearing on sufficiency); double jeopardy inapplicable here |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.J., 829 N.E.2d 1207 (Ohio 2005) (juvenile court’s sua sponte dismissal equates to a decision granting a motion to dismiss under R.C. 2945.67(A))
- State v. Calhoun, 481 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio 1985) (double jeopardy does not bar retrial when proceeding terminated for a reason other than factual insufficiency or innocence)
- In re N.I., 944 N.E.2d 1214 (Ohio App.) (discussing appealability and double jeopardy when juvenile court dismisses after hearings)
- In re J.V., 938 N.E.2d 81 (Ohio App.) (appellate standard for independent, de novo review of jurisdictional dismissals)
- Morrison v. Steiner, 290 N.E.2d 841 (Ohio 1972) (defining subject-matter jurisdiction)