2014 Ohio 5414
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Juvenile D.P. was adjudicated delinquent for aggravated robbery with firearm specifications; this court previously held commitment to DYS mandatory under R.C. 2152.17(A)(2) and remanded for disposition.
- At the February 20, 2014 dispositional hearing the juvenile court committed D.P. to DYS and credited him with 99 days spent at the Hamilton County Youth Center, but declined to credit 310 days he had spent at the Hillcrest School.
- D.P. sought credit under amended R.C. 2152.18(B), which requires the court to state total days the child has been "confined" in connection with the delinquent complaint; the statute excludes house arrest, electronic monitoring, and halfway-house days.
- The State argued Hillcrest is not a lockdown facility and thus its days are not "confined;" D.P. urged a broader reading based on adult jail-credit jurisprudence (Napier).
- The appellate court held the correct inquiry is facility characteristics and the juvenile’s actual restrictions (following Napier) but found the record lacked evidence about Hillcrest’s security and staff control over D.P.
- The court reversed and remanded for the trial court to develop the record on Hillcrest’s nature and the extent of staff control over D.P.’s personal liberties to determine whether those days qualify as "confined."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (D.P.) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether days at Hillcrest School count as "confined" under R.C. 2152.18(B) | Hillcrest days should be credited; apply Napier standard (look to actual restrictions and facility control) | Hillcrest is not a lockdown facility; "confined" means jailed/incarcerated so Hillcrest days do not count | Court follows Napier: examine facility security and staff control; record lacks evidence, so reverse and remand for factual development |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Napier, 93 Ohio St.3d 646 (2001) (time in a community-based corrections facility can constitute "confinement" if the facility effectively controls ability to leave and secures the community)
- State v. Snowder, 87 Ohio St.3d 335 (1999) (definition and characteristics of a CBCF — secure facility with lockups and measures to protect community)