In re J.C.E.
2016 Ohio 7843
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Juvenile appellant J.C.E. pled true to two counts of burglary and criminal trespass; the court committed him to DYS for a combined minimum of two years (suspended) subject to successful completion of a Community Corrections Facility (CCF) program.
- Appellant was placed at the Juvenile Residential Center of Northwest Ohio (JRC), a CCF; he later failed to complete the program.
- The juvenile court imposed the previously suspended DYS commitment after a violation hearing but denied credit for time served at JRC in its written entry, citing In re Thomas.
- The court did give credit for 40 days in county juvenile detention but expressly refused credit for JRC time; appellant appealed that refusal.
- The appellate court reviewed the issue de novo as a pure legal question and considered whether the statutory amendment to R.C. 2152.18(B) (replacing "held in detention" with "confined") and Ohio caselaw require credit for CCF stays.
- The court reversed and remanded for findings on whether JRC constituted "confinement" under the Supreme Court's test in State v. Napier and, if so, how many days of credit are owed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether time spent at a CCF (JRC) must be credited against a DYS commitment under R.C. 2152.18(B) | Appellant: the amended statute uses "confined," superseding In re Thomas; Napier's confinement test applies and requires credit if JRC restrains liberty sufficiently | State: Thomas controls; CCFs are distinct from DYS commitment and not necessarily "confinement" like adult CBCFs; JRC time should not be credited | Court: Thomas was superseded by the 2012 statutory amendment; Napier's confinement standard applies; remand required to determine if JRC stay was "confined" and how many days credit are owed |
| Standard and scope of review for the legal question | Appellant: appellate review de novo because facts are undisputed; legal application of confinement test is pure law | State: argued plain error/waiver since no objection below | Court: No waiver—trial court’s language suggested credit would be applied and the written denial was a final judgment; de novo review appropriate |
| What evidence is needed to determine "confinement" at a CCF | Appellant: entitlement to full credit if JRC meets Napier factors; remand to award days | State: remand should require appellant to prove a locked facility with gates and continuous monitoring | Court: Remand for trial court to take evidence about JRC’s security and restrictions; Napier factors guide inquiry but rigid "locked gates" proof is not required |
| Effect of authorized off-ground visits on confinement analysis | Appellant: off-ground visits do not preclude confinement under Napier | State: off-ground visits show less restriction and weigh against confinement | Court: Off-ground visits are not dispositive; court must evaluate whether visits were by court order/supervised and assess overall restriction level on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Thomas, 100 Ohio St.3d 89 (2003) (construed former R.C. 2152.18(B) to limit credit to time "held in detention pending adjudication or disposition")
- State v. Napier, 93 Ohio St.3d 646 (2001) (adult case adopting a functional test for "confinement" in community-based correctional facilities; examine facility security and restraints on liberty)