In re R.B.
2021 Ohio 2112
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- At 14, R.B. admitted to sexually related acts with his two 4‑year‑old cousins; juvenile court committed him to DYS until age 21 but suspended the commitment and imposed community control (probation and an order to "obey all laws and orders of this Court").
- Parties agreed on a Tier I juvenile‑offender registrant classification at a January 13, 2012 hearing; clerical entries mistakenly referenced Tier III but contained disclaimers stating Tier I; R.B. did not object then.
- R.B. completed treatment and was moved from "official probation" to "non‑reporting probation with monitored time" in July 2013; disposition language still contemplated supervision until his 21st birthday (July 20, 2017).
- After release from intensive supervision R.B. incurred adult convictions (including failing to register) and community‑control violations; the juvenile court held a completion‑of‑disposition hearing in 2017 and continued his Tier I classification.
- Procedural history: this court earlier vacated the continued classification for lack of jurisdiction; the Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding timing requirements non‑jurisdictional and remanded; on remand this Court considered four assignments of error and affirmed the juvenile court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (R.B.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/timing of initial Tier I classification under R.C. 2152.83 | Classification was timely and valid; parties agreed and court entered order shortly after disposition. | Classification was untimely/void because of gaps between disposition, classification, and release and alleged procedural defects. | Classification was valid and precluded from relitigation by prior appellate decision; timing rule is not jurisdictional under In re R.B. |
| Jurisdiction to hold completion‑of‑disposition hearing (too late/too early) | Court retained jurisdiction; disposition ran until age 21 and monitored time remained in effect, so hearing within reasonable time was proper. | Hearing was untimely if disposition ended when "official probation" terminated in 2013; alternatively, it was premature because disposition had not yet ended. | Court retained jurisdiction; 2013 change did not end disposition (monitored time was effectively part of original order); hearing fell within reasonable proximity of disposition end. |
| Due process: 46‑month gap between treatment completion and hearing prejudiced R.B. | Gap did not cause prejudice; R.B.'s treatment success is in record but later adult offenses are properly considered. | Delay prevented effective presentation of rehabilitative evidence and earlier petition for declassification. | No due‑process violation; juvenile court discretion to loosen supervision and gap did not prejudice R.B. materially—adult misconduct, not court delay, produced the adverse evidence. |
| Abuse of discretion in continuing Tier I classification | Consideration of all relevant factors (including adult convictions and community‑control violations) supported continuation. | Court erred by relying on R.B.'s adult record and not giving greater weight to successful juvenile treatment and mitigating factors. | No abuse of discretion; juvenile court permissibly weighed countervailing statutory factors and reasonably continued Tier I classification. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.B., 162 Ohio St.3d 281 (Ohio 2020) (holding statutory timing for end‑of‑disposition hearing is not jurisdictional and may be satisfied within a reasonable time before or after completion)
- State v. Buttery, 162 Ohio St.3d 10 (Ohio 2020) (affirming conviction for failing to register based on juvenile adjudication and rejecting related challenges to the juvenile classification order)
- State ex rel. Jean‑Baptiste v. Kirsch, 134 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 2012) (juvenile court lacks authority to classify after the delinquency adjudication has been fully satisfied)
- In re Cross, 96 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2002) (completion of probation signals end of juvenile court's jurisdiction over delinquent juvenile)
- In re J.F., 121 Ohio St.3d 76 (Ohio 2009) (explaining that ‘‘probation’’ became an element of community control and that remaining community‑control conditions preserve court supervision)
- State v. Amos, 87 N.E.3d 1305 (1st Dist. 2017) (distinguishable case where court held hearing after discharge from supervision and found court lacked authority to classify)