In re J.G.
2013 Ohio 583
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- In March 2012, the state filed a delinquency complaint against J.G. for felonious assault with a one-year firearm specification; J.G. admitted the one-year specification and the offense, with disposition to DYS for 1 year to his 21st birthday.
- The victim incurred over $15,000 in medical bills and did not have medical insurance; lost wages were claimed by the victim but not proven or awarded.
- At disposition, the trial court ordered restitution of $15,502 to be paid by J.G. for the medical bills and chose not to impose any restitution for lost wages.
- The court did not conduct a separate hearing on the child’s ability to pay or on whether community service should be imposed in lieu of monetary sanctions, though the court recognized indigence evidence.
- J.G. argued on appeal that, because he was indigent, the court was required to consider community service in lieu of restitution and that trial counsel was ineffective for not raising the issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution was properly imposed without considering community service for indigence | J.G. (juvenile) asserts error for failure to consider community service in lieu of restitution. | State contends the statute requires only consideration, not a bound record of it, and restitution can be imposed if appropriate. | No reversible error; court properly exercised discretion and need not record the consideration. |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to restitution | J.G. asserts ineffective assistance by failing to object to restitution. | State contends lack of prejudice since the court was not required to hold a separate hearing or impose community service. | No ineffective assistance; failure to object did not prejudice outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cory P., 2012-Ohio-5453 (Ohio 2012) (indigency and imposition of financial sanctions—need not be tested by separate hearing)
- State v. Clark, 2002-Ohio-6684 (Ohio 2002) (indigency considerations for sanctions in juvenile cases)
- In re Boss B., 2008-Ohio-2995 (6th Dist. 2008) (trial court may not be required to record non-sequential considerations)
- In re Morris, 2009-Ohio-4711 (8th Dist. 2009) (adult restitution requires consideration; lack of ability-to-pay findings distinguished)