State v. Bode
144 Ohio St. 3d 155
| Ohio | 2015Background
- In 1992 Jason Bode, a minor, was adjudicated delinquent for an OVI-equivalent offense and was not represented by counsel; no valid waiver of counsel is shown.
- Bode later had four adult OVI convictions (1996–1999) and two 2011 OVI convictions; the state counted the 1992 juvenile adjudication toward the five-prior-offenses threshold in R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d) to enhance penalties.
- Bode moved to suppress the juvenile adjudication under Nichols, arguing an uncounseled adjudication that exposed him to possible confinement could not be used for enhancement; the trial court denied the motion.
- The Fifth District affirmed; the Ohio Supreme Court accepted discretionary review and framed a proposition about the use of an uncounseled juvenile adjudication tied to a 3-day driver intervention program with potential detention.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that Brooke’s rule for uncounseled adult convictions applies to juveniles when the adjudication carried the possibility of confinement and there was no valid waiver of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an uncounseled juvenile adjudication that exposed the juvenile to possible confinement may be used to enhance a later OVI sentence under R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d) | Bode: juvenile adjudication was uncounseled and not validly waived; therefore it is constitutionally infirm and cannot be used for enhancement | State: right to counsel attaches only where actual confinement was imposed; Bode was not confined, so adjudication may be used | Court held that Brooke’s principle applies to juveniles: if adjudication carried possibility of confinement and no valid waiver, it cannot be used to enhance later OVI penalties |
| Whether Ohio should follow federal cases (Scott/Nichols) limiting counsel-trigger to actual imprisonment | Bode: juvenile due-process right to counsel attaches where possible confinement exists (Gault; Ohio statutes codified right) | State: federal precedent (Scott, Nichols) requires actual imprisonment before constitutional right to counsel attaches | Court applied Ohio due-process analysis, recognizing states may provide greater protection; used possibility-of-confinement standard for juveniles |
| Whether Brooke is limited to adult convictions that resulted in confinement | Bode: Brooke’s rule on uncounseled prior convictions should apply to juveniles | State: Brooke’s repeated references to confinement limit it to cases with actual confinement | Court clarified Brooke’s holding is not restricted to cases where confinement actually occurred; focus is on whether possibility of confinement existed and waiver occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brooke, 113 Ohio St.3d 199 (Ohio 2007) (uncounseled prior convictions cannot be used to enhance later penalties absent proof of valid waiver)
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1967) (juveniles have right to counsel in proceedings that may lead to commitment)
- Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1994) (federal rule limiting counsel-trigger in misdemeanor context to cases with actual imprisonment; states may grant greater protections)
- Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1979) (right to counsel attaches where actual imprisonment is imposed)
- State v. Adkins, 129 Ohio St.3d 287 (Ohio 2011) (juvenile adjudications count as convictions for sentence enhancement statutes)
- State v. Schleiger, 141 Ohio St.3d 67 (Ohio 2014) (discusses right to counsel in critical stages and importance of counsel to protect against custody consequences)