In re D.P.
2014 Ohio 3324
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- D.P. was adjudicated delinquent for aggravated robbery and committed to ODYS, then placed on parole.
- State filed a parole-violation motion on September 17, 2013; D.P. admitted to violating parole at a September 25, 2013 revocation hearing.
- At disposition, the trial judge first stated a 90-day ODYS commitment, then revised to a 30-day minimum under R.C. 5139.52(F).
- The journal entry dated September 27, 2013 explicitly reflects a 90-day commitment and a minimum 30-day return to ODYS, creating inconsistency.
- D.P. timely appealed alleging (I) plain error for a 90-day minimum commitment contrary to R.C. 5139.52(F) and constitutional rights, and (II) ineffective assistance for not objecting to the commitment.
- The appellate court affirmed the judgment and remanded to correct the clerical error in the journal entry, highlighting a nunc pro tunc correction could reflect the court’s actual decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 90-day minimum ODYS commitment violated RC 5139.52(F). | D.P. argues the 90-day minimum was illegal. | State argues RC 5139.52(F) allows a commitment longer than 30 days. | Without merit; the sanction could be consistent with law. |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an alleged illegal commitment. | D.P. contends counsel should have objected. | State contends no error given the disposition was lawful. | Without merit; defense counsel not ineffective. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.V., 138 Ohio St.3d 408 (2014-Ohio-812) (holds RC 5139.52(F) permits longer than 30 days)
- State ex rel. Cruzado v. Zaleski, 111 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006-Ohio-5795) (clerical corrections via nunc pro tunc allowed)
- In re D.S., 111 Ohio St.3d 361 (2006-Ohio-5851) (abuse of discretion standard for disposition, familiar framework)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard and review principles)