In re L.S.
2021 Ohio 3353
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- On March 31, 2020, 14-year-old L.S. was accused of threatening 12‑year‑old J.S. with a gun, taking J.S.’s car keys, and giving them to an associate who drove off and crashed the vehicle. L.S. was arrested nearby wearing clothing and a mask matching witness descriptions.
- The state charged L.S. in juvenile court with six counts: aggravated robbery (with firearm specifications), three counts of robbery (different theories), grand theft (with firearm specifications), and criminal damaging/endangering.
- Police conducted a “cold‑stand” identification at the scene (officer brought the detained suspect to the victim shortly after the incident) and recovered surveillance video from multiple cameras; both were admitted at the adjudicatory hearing.
- At the adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile court found L.S. delinquent on all counts. At disposition the court announced Counts 1–5 were allied and would merge, sentenced on aggravated robbery, but its written journal entry nonetheless listed separate (concurrent) dispositions and fines for Counts 1–5 and incorrectly recorded a $400 suspended fine on Count 6 instead of the $100 the court announced.
- L.S. appealed, arguing (1) the juvenile court erred by imposing multiple dispositions for allied offenses (double‑jeopardy/merger issue) and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress or object to the cold‑stand ID and the surveillance video.
- The court affirmed the delinquency findings, rejected the ineffective‑assistance claim, vacated the dispositions on Counts 1–5 (remanding for the state to elect an allied offense and for resentencing), and remanded for a nunc pro tunc correction of the Count 6 fine.
Issues
| Issue | L.S.'s Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court violated double jeopardy / R.C. 2941.25 by imposing separate dispositions on Counts 1–5 after finding they were allied | Court erred by imposing multiple dispositions for conduct constituting allied offenses; merger required a single sentence | Concurrent sentences reflect single punishment; no double jeopardy because punishment occurred once | Court: concurrent sentences do not substitute for statutory merger; dispositions on Counts 1–5 vacated; remand for the state to elect an allied offense and for resentencing; first assignment sustained |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress or to object to (a) the cold‑stand identification and (b) the surveillance video CD | Counsel should have moved to suppress the suggestive cold‑stand and objected to unauthenticated video; failure prejudiced outcome | Counsel made reasonable tactical choices; IDs and video were reliable/authenticated and suppression would have been futile; no prejudice | Court: counsel not ineffective. Cold‑stand ID was not shown to be impermissibly suggestive and was reliable; video was properly authenticated and usable in cross‑examination; second assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.G., 148 Ohio St.3d 118 (juveniles receive same double‑jeopardy protections and merger analysis as adults)
- State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403 (trial court must merge allied offenses and impose a single sentence; state elects which allied offense to pursue at sentencing)
- State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (only one conviction/sentence allowed for allied offenses of similar import)
- State v. Madison, 64 Ohio St.2d 322 (one‑person show‑up/cold‑stand soon after the crime can be permissible and may promote accurate identification)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (factors to assess reliability of an identification: opportunity to view, attention, accuracy of prior description, certainty, and time elapsed)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance + prejudice)