In re R.H.
2017 Ohio 467
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Juvenile R.H. admitted to delinquency for possession of cocaine (case DL 13117582) and admitted a parole/supervised-release violation; earlier disposition suspended a six-month ODYS commitment.
- Later adjudicated delinquent for felonious assault (DL 15118059) and receiving stolen property (DL 16100920); court committed him to ODYS for one year (assault) and 90 days (receiving stolen property, later credited).
- The juvenile court reinstated the suspended six-month minimum ODYS commitment for the parole violation and ordered the new commitments to run consecutively, yielding an 18-month aggregate commitment.
- R.H. appealed, arguing the consecutive commitments were unauthorized, unnecessary to protect the public, disproportionate, and excessive.
- The juvenile court based its disposition on R.H.’s escalating delinquent history, lack of rehabilitation, and the statutory purposes of juvenile disposition (protection, accountability, rehabilitation).
Issues
| Issue | R.H.'s Argument | State/Juvenile Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court erred by imposing consecutive commitments | Consecutive terms were unlawful because adult consecutive-sentencing findings (R.C. 2929.14) weren’t made; statute R.C. 2152.17(F) doesn’t authorize consecutive terms for parole violations | Juvenile court has authority under R.C. 2152.19(A)(8) (broad residual disposition power) and H.V. supports running parole-violation term consecutively when needed to satisfy juvenile dispositional purposes | Court affirmed: juvenile court may impose consecutive terms using R.C. 2152.19(A)(8); no special adult-style findings required |
| Whether the aggregate 18-month commitment was excessive or disproportionate | The total commitment (18 months) is excessive, unnecessary to protect the public, and disproportionate to R.H.’s offenses/danger | Commitment lengths are authorized by R.C. 2152.16 for the offenses (second-degree → min 1 year; fifth-degree → min 6 months); court considered history, seriousness, and need for graduated sanctions | Court affirmed: disposition was not an abuse of discretion and not excessive |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.S., 111 Ohio St.3d 361, 856 N.E.2d 921 (court will not reverse juvenile disposition absent abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (abuse of discretion standard defined)
- In re Kirby, 101 Ohio St.3d 312, 804 N.E.2d 476 (distinguishes juvenile vs. adult sentencing purposes)
- In re H.V., 138 Ohio St.3d 408, 7 N.E.3d 1173 (juvenile court may impose consecutive terms via R.C. 2152.19(A)(8) despite R.C. 2152.17 limits)
- In re Caldwell, 76 Ohio St.3d 156, 666 N.E.2d 1367 (juvenile repeat offenders may receive more severe dispositions; discretion to avoid "rewarding" crime sprees)