In re T.N.
2013 Ohio 135
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- T.N. is an adjudicated delinquent appealing a Union County disposition judgment; Clark County adjudications preceded the transfer.
- In Dec 2011, T.N. assaulted staff at Oesterlen Services for Youth during treatment and resisted arrest, leading to multiple Clark County charges.
- T.N. admitted to the escape charge in Clark County case 2011-1710C under a plea agreement, with other charges dismissed, and the matter transferred to Union County.
- A combined hearing in Union County addressed disposition for cases 21120157, 21120164, and 21120254; T.N. challenged the adequacy of the transfer and the admissibility of her admission.
- Clark County magistrate conducted a Juv.R. 29(D) colloquy at arraignment/adjudicatory hearing; the court later found substantial noncompliance with Juv.R. 29(D).
- The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, due to plain error in the Juv.R. 29(D) process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clark County failed to transfer to Union County under Juv.R. 11(B). | T.N. argues improper transfer. | Clark County contends transfer was proper. | Moot; reversed on other grounds. |
| Whether the Union County court erred by not holding a hearing to withdraw the guilty plea. | T.N. contends she should have a withdrawal hearing. | Union County followed standard procedures. | Moot; remanded for proper proceedings. |
| Whether the Union County court erred by not permitting withdrawal of the guilty plea. | T.N. seeks withdrawal. | No withdrawal necessary. | Moot; remand for new proceedings on plea. |
| Whether counsel failed to ensure the defense received adequate representation under the Fifth Amendment due to Oesterlen’s classification. | Counsel failed to raise classification issue affecting charges. | Counsel adequately represented defense interests. | Moot; remand for proper proceedings on plea and classification. |
| Whether the Clark County Juv.R. 29(D) colloquy complied with due process requirements. | Colloquy inadequate to establish voluntariness/understanding. | Colloquy sufficient under substantial compliance standard. | Sustained; plain error, reversal and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.S., 115 Ohio St.3d 267 (2007-Ohio-4919) (substantial compliance standard for Juv.R. 29(D))
- In re Beechler, 115 Ohio App.3d 567 (1996-Ohio-???) (affirmative duty to determine juvenile understands admissions)
- In re Miller, 119 Ohio App.3d 52 (1997) (careful, child-appropriate appellate procedure with Juv.R. 29(D))
- In re Doyle, 122 Ohio App.3d 767 (1997) (precedes requiring substantial compliance with Juv.R. 29(D))
- In re Wood, 2004-Ohio-6539 (2004) (requirement to apprise juvenile of nature of charges)