In Re D.S.
148 Ohio St. 3d 390
Ohio2016Background
- In May 2013 the state filed a juvenile delinquency complaint against D.S. for offenses arising from a single incident; D.S. was detained and remained in custody for 286 days prior to the juvenile disposition.
- The juvenile court initially remanded D.S.; the matter was later transferred to common pleas (adult) court, then dismissed there pursuant to a negotiated resolution returning the case to juvenile court.
- D.S. admitted in juvenile court to a single robbery with a firearm specification in exchange for a recommended two-year commitment to the Department of Youth Services (DYS).
- At disposition the juvenile judge imposed a two-year commitment but expressly denied any precommitment (confinement) credit, stating “Zero precommitment days are ordered,” despite defense and the prosecutor indicating the parties had understood credit would be applied.
- The State conceded error below that R.C. 2152.18(B) required credit for confinement “in connection with” the complaint, but the court of appeals affirmed the denial; the Ohio Supreme Court accepted discretionary review.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding the plain language of R.C. 2152.18(B) mandates credit for predisposition confinement sufficiently linked to the adjudicated complaint and remanded for calculation and award of days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2152.18(B) requires credit for days a juvenile was confined pending disposition | D.S.: statute’s plain language requires the court to state (and DYS to apply) total days confined "in connection with" the complaint; he was entitled to credit for 286 days | Juvenile court: the dispositive complaint was a "new" or "amended" charge so prior confinement did not relate to the complaint upon which commitment was based | Court: R.C. 2152.18(B) plainly requires credit where confinement is "in connection with" the complaint; here all confinement was sufficiently linked, so credit must be awarded |
| Whether the court may refuse credit based on juvenile’s behavior in detention | D.S.: behavior is irrelevant—statute leaves no discretion to deny credit | State/prosecutor initially equivocated but conceded credit was due; juvenile court relied on discretion to deny | Court: no discretion to refuse credit for linked confinement; behavior cannot defeat the statutory entitlement |
| Whether dismissal and refiling or transfer to another court defeats credit | D.S.: form of charging instrument or venue change should not strip credit when allegations arise from same incident | Juvenile court: treated the refiling/transfer as a separate/new case to justify zero credit | Court: form/venue changes are not dispositive; when allegations arise from same incident and confinement is linked, credit is required |
| Whether statutory or constitutional analysis was necessary | D.S.: statutory language controls; constitutional equal-protection arguments unnecessary here | Juvenile court raised procedural characterizations; no need to reach constitutional claims | Court: resolved case on statutory construction of R.C. 2152.18(B) and declined to reach constitutional issues |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Thomas, 100 Ohio St.3d 89 (2003) (construing predecessor to R.C. 2152.18(B) to require credit for detention periods sufficiently linked to the original delinquency complaint)
- State v. Talty, 103 Ohio St.3d 177 (2004) (precept that courts avoid constitutional questions when statutory construction suffices)
- State v. Gregory, 108 Ohio App.3d 264 (1996) (credit for jail time is a computation, not a discretionary sentencing choice)
- Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288 (1936) (principle that courts avoid deciding constitutional questions unless necessary)
- Cooperrider, 4 Ohio St.3d 226 (1983) (plain-error doctrine applied to prevent manifest injustice)
- In re C.S., 115 Ohio St.3d 267 (2007) (a juvenile’s admission must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)