In Re I.A., 140 Ohio St. 3d 203

Juvenile I.A. (age 14 at offense) was adjudicated delinquent for rape and transferred to Montgomery County for disposition.
At disposition the juvenile court committed I.A. to the Department of Youth Services (secure facility) and, at the same hearing, held an R.C. 2152.83(B)(2) classification hearing and designated I.A. a Tier III juvenile-offender registrant.
I.A. appealed, arguing that R.C. 2152.83(B)(1) permits a classification hearing only at disposition or, if the juvenile is committed to a secure facility, at the time of release — not both; therefore the court erred by classifying him at disposition.
The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed, adopting a plain-language reading that the statute leaves timing to the judge’s discretion. The appellate court certified conflict with the Fifth District’s decision in In re B.G., which held the opposite.
The Ohio Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether a court that commits a child to a secure facility may conduct the R.C. 2152.83(B)(2) classification hearing at disposition or must wait until release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a juvenile court that commits a child to a secure facility may hold the R.C. 2152.83(B)(2) classification hearing at disposition or must wait until the child’s release	I.A.: Commitment to a secure facility bars a disposition-time hearing; statute allows a hearing at disposition only when the child is not committed	State: R.C. 2152.83(B)(1) is permissive and unambiguous; a court that adjudicates a child delinquent may hold the hearing at disposition even if it commits the child, and may also (optionally) hold it at release	The court held that R.C. 2152.83(B)(1) permits a court that commits a child to a secure facility to hold the classification hearing at disposition; the court also may hold a hearing at release (statutory options), so the appellate judgment is affirmed.
Whether the statute contemplates one hearing or multiple hearings for classification when a juvenile is committed (separate/narrow question raised in concurrence)	I.A.: (implicit) single hearing at release preferred to allow treatment to take effect before classification	State: argued discretion over timing; lower court treated both times as available	Justice French (concurrence): agrees with result but contends statute authorizes only a single (one-time) R.C. 2152.83(B) hearing — courts must choose disposition OR release, not both.

Estate of Heintzelman v. Air Experts, Inc., 126 Ohio St.3d 138 (2010) (first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether statute is clear)
State v. Kreischer, 109 Ohio St.3d 391 (2006) (when legislative intent is plainly conveyed, court applies statute as written)
Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy Dist., 27 Ohio St.2d 102 (1971) (the word “may” generally denotes permissive/discretionary meaning)
Pizza v. Sunset Fireworks Co., Inc., 25 Ohio St.3d 1 (1986) (use of connector “or” indicates distinct alternative options)