In re J.F.
2017 Ohio 7675
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Juvenile J.F. was charged in multiple delinquency complaints (theft, criminal damaging, possession of criminal tools, domestic violence) and one unruly complaint (habitual truancy).
- Defense counsel moved for a competency evaluation; a magistrate found J.F. incompetent but likely restorable and approved an outpatient competency-attainment plan on April 7, 2016.
- R.C. 2152.59(D)(2)(a) limited outpatient attainment services for J.F. (misdemeanor-level exposure) to a 3-month maximum, running from plan approval (April 7–July 7, 2016).
- J.F. attended some but not all scheduled attainment sessions; providers reported missed sessions and recommended more restrictive settings if nonparticipation continued. The magistrate threatened custody to ensure participation; J.F. later attended and the magistrate found continuing progress.
- On the July 7, 2016 deadline the magistrate found J.F. had not been restored and was unlikely to be restored within a reasonable time, dismissed the delinquency complaints, and denied the state’s request to toll the statutory attainment period for J.F.’s nonparticipation. The juvenile court adopted the magistrate’s rulings. The state appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | J.F.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the R.C. 2152.59 statutory attainment period may be tolled for a juvenile’s failure to participate in restoration services | Time should be tolled for the period J.F. did not participate so the state has the full statutory opportunity to restore competency | The statute fixes a maximum participation period and provides remedies short of tolling; no statutory tolling exists | Court held R.C. 2152.59 contains no tolling mechanism; instead the statute requires the court to change setting/services (e.g., more restrictive setting) if the juvenile won’t cooperate; no tolling permitted |
| Whether the state’s appeals were final and appealable orders (including the unruly count) | The state asserted right to appeal the dismissals under R.C. 2945.67(A) | J.F. argued the dismissals were not final because they were without prejudice and the unruly dismissal was not appealable as of right | Court held dismissals of delinquency counts were appealable under R.C. 2945.67(A) (State v. Craig controlling); the appeal of the unruly dismissal was dismissed for lack of appeal as of right |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Craig, 876 N.E.2d 957 (Ohio 2007) (state may appeal dismissal of an indictment or complaint whether with or without prejudice)
- Jacobson v. Kaforey, 75 N.E.3d 203 (Ohio 2016) (statutory interpretation: plain and unambiguous language governs)
- Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of Southwest Ohio, Inc., 998 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio App. 2013) (standard: statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- In re Eddie O., 253 P.3d 296 (Ariz. App. 2011) (court allowed tolling where juvenile in bad faith absconded from restoration services; distinguished on statutory text)