2016 Ohio 3131
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Juvenile T.W. admitted to conduct equivalent to aggravated assault with a firearm; the court committed him to DYS, suspended the commitment, and placed him on probation at Hillcrest children’s residential center.
- After repeated rule violations at Hillcrest, the court revoked probation and imposed the suspended DYS commitment.
- The juvenile court credited T.W.’s DYS commitment with 207 days spent at Hillcrest. The State appealed, arguing those days were not "confined" under R.C. 2152.18(B).
- Hillcrest is an 80-acre residential campus (school, cottages, gym) with 24/7 staff monitoring, 111 cameras, escorted activities, strict rules (permission required for restroom/water, bed checks every 15 minutes), keyed cottage access with exit alarms, staff use of physical restraint to prevent unauthorized departures, supervised off-campus trips, and earned weekend passes subject to consequences if not returned.
- The trial court found Hillcrest placement constituted "confinement" for purposes of R.C. 2152.18(B) and ordered the 207-day credit; the appellate court reviewed the purely legal question de novo.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | T.W.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether days at Hillcrest qualify as "confined" under R.C. 2152.18(B) | Hillcrest is nonsecure (no fence, unlocked campus) and allows weekend passes; thus juveniles are not "confined" | Hillcrest imposes constant supervision and significant restrictions on movement and liberties; departures trigger restraint, police, and warrants | Yes. Time at Hillcrest is "confinement"; 207 days credited to DYS commitment |
| Whether State preserved argument that juveniles on probation cannot get credit for residential-center time | Argues juveniles on probation aren’t entitled to credit for residential-center time | (T.W.) Not directly addressed below; court credited time | Forfeited. State did not raise this below and made no plain-error claim; argument not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Napier, 93 Ohio St.3d 646 (Ohio 2001) (defines confinement in adult context—whether person was free to come and go and subject to staff control)
- State v. Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295 (Ohio 2007) (standards for reviewing legal questions de novo)
- Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468 (Ohio 2007) (legislature’s role in public-policy determinations)
- State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 (Ohio 1990) (preservation/forfeiture of error; plain error doctrine)