In re T.W.
2016 Ohio 8371
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Juvenile T.W. pleaded true to two counts of rape and four counts of gross sexual imposition in February 2016; commitments to DYS were suspended and he was placed in a rehabilitation center for sex-offender treatment.
- The State filed a motion to revoke probation alleging violent and threatening conduct at the rehabilitation center; at the revocation hearing T.W. admitted the probation violation.
- At that hearing counsel waived reading the complaint; the court did not read the complaint or otherwise explain the specific allegations or rule T.W. was accused of violating before accepting his admission.
- During the colloquy T.W. indicated he did not understand the possible punishments that could result from the probation violation.
- The juvenile court revoked probation and committed T.W. to DYS for consecutive minimum terms (one year for rape counts; six months for GSI counts); the appellate court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court complied with Juv. R. 29(D) when accepting an admission to a probation violation | Court substantially complied; represented counsel and waiver of reading suffice | Court failed to inform juvenile of nature of allegations; admission not knowing, intelligent, voluntary | Court held the record did not show substantial compliance with Juv. R. 29(D); admission invalid; reversal and remand |
| Whether failure to object by counsel yields only plain-error review / whether counsel’s representation can substitute for court compliance | Failure to object waived review; counsel’s statements and waiver cure defects | Mandatory language of Juv. R. 29(D) cannot be waived by silence; counsel’s representations are insufficient | Court held "shall" in Juv. R. 29(D) imposes mandatory duty on the court; counsel’s representations do not substitute for the court’s personal colloquy |
| Whether T.W. received ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to Juv. R. 29 noncompliance | N/A (State) | Trial counsel’s failure to object denied effective assistance | Declared moot by disposition of first issue |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.S., 874 N.E.2d 1177 (Ohio 2007) (explaining preferred strict compliance with Juv. R. 29 and defining substantial compliance standard)
- In re Royal, 725 N.E.2d 685 (Ohio App. 1999) (holding written waiver form does not substitute for court’s personal colloquy)
- In re Flynn, 656 N.E.2d 737 (Ohio App. 1995) (attorney’s representations are insufficient to demonstrate juvenile’s voluntary, knowing waiver)