In re L.N., 2018 Ohio 3982

In Oct. 2014, then-15-year-old L.N. was adjudicated delinquent for gross sexual imposition for sexual contact with his 4-year-old sister; the court committed him to DYS but suspended that commitment conditioned on placement at JRC and deferred sex-offender classification until his release from JRC.
While at JRC, L.N. was charged in a separate 2015 GSI matter (conduct alleged when he was 13) and the court committed him to DYS in that separate case.
On June 18, 2015 the court terminated L.N.’s probation and JRC placement in the 2014 case and ordered notice before any release from DYS for a classification hearing.
The court held a juvenile sex-offender classification hearing July–Aug. 2016 (shortly before his scheduled August 4, 2016 release from DYS) and classified L.N. as a Tier II juvenile sex-offender registrant.
On appeal (after App.R. 26(B) reopening for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel), the Sixth District found the court committed plain error by conducting the classification after L.N.’s June 2015 release from JRC and termination of probation and vacated the Tier II classification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court violated R.C. 2152.83(B)(1) by holding the classification hearing after L.N.’s release from JRC and after probation/placement were terminated	L.N.: statute allows classification only at disposition or at release from the secure facility tied to the delinquent act; his release from JRC (June 18, 2015) ended the window to classify in the 2014 GSI case	State: court reasonably deferred classification and acted within statute; earlier appellate decision purportedly supported timing	Court held plain error: classification after June 23, 2015 (post-release/termination) exceeded statutory authority and prejudiced L.N.; reversal and vacatur of Tier II classification
Whether the juvenile court had jurisdiction to classify L.N. after it terminated probation/placement	L.N.: termination of probation discharged the court’s authority in that case; after discharge the court lacked jurisdiction to impose classification	State: argued court retained authority to classify and that this was not an attempt to act after the case concluded	Court relied on State ex rel. Jean-Baptiste and In re Cross to hold the court lost jurisdiction once probation/disposition was fully satisfied; classification after termination was invalid

Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (procedural-presumption rule where appellant fails to provide transcript) (applicable to appellate-record presumptions)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard) (governs App.R. 26(B) reopening analysis)
State ex rel. Jean-Baptiste v. Kirsch, 134 Ohio St.3d 421 (juvenile court lacks authority to classify after release and after disposition fully satisfied) (controlling on post-discharge jurisdiction for classification)
In re Cross, 96 Ohio St.3d 328 (juvenile court cannot reimpose suspended commitment after juvenile released from probation) (supports jurisdictional limits after probation termination)
State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (plain error standard requires error be clear on face of record and prejudicial) (standard applied for review)