In re N.P.
2013 Ohio 1288
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- N.P. was adjudicated delinquent after admitting to one count of breaking and entering and one count of criminal damaging; other charges were dismissed.
- The juvenile court ordered ODYS commitment for 6 months minimum to age 21, stayed on probation.
- N.P. violated probation; ODYS commitment was invoked for 60 days, then released on parole supervision.
- A second two-count parole-violation complaint was filed; N.P. admitted to violations and was adjudicated delinquent with parole revoked and two 90-day ODYS commitments (to be served consecutively).
- N.P. appealed challenging the 180-day total parole-revocation commitment and the consecutive sentencing, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding the 180-day total and consecutive terms complied with law; mootness issues discussed but substantive review conducted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court impose 180 days total for two parole violations? | N.P. argues 90 days per violation; total 180 is unlawful under RC 5139.52(F). | State contends two distinct violations may yield 180 days under RC 5139.52(F). | 180-day total permissible; 30-day minimum requirement satisfied. |
| Can parole-violation sentences be served consecutively under law? | Consecutive 90-day terms violate RC 2152.17(F). | Consecutive terms permitted by court’s authority over delinquent dispositions. | Consecutive parole-revocation sentences permissible; no error. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to the parole-revocation sentences? | Ineffective assistance due to failure to object to 180-day term. | No merit given prior appellate precedent; claims foregone. | Ineffective-assistance claim rejected as moot/without merit. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Evans, 2012-Ohio-5099 (2d Dist. 2012) (mootness when appellant completed sentence; assignments discussed)
- In re A.N., 2012-Ohio-1789 (11th Dist. 2012) (review of 90-day parole revocation and ineffective-assistance claims)
- In re H.V., 2012-Ohio-3742 (9th Dist. 2012) (R.C. 5139.52(F) and parole-revocation sentencing authority)
- In re D.S., 111 Ohio St.3d 361 (2006-Ohio-5851) (juvenile court discretion in disposition)