State v. Brown
2018 Ohio 4185
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In Oct 2016 two complaints alleged 16-year-old DaeQuan Brown participated in a drive-by shooting at Linden McKinley High School (two victims injured) and later threw urine on a juvenile detention officer; juvenile court waived jurisdiction and transferred both matters to adult court.
- Juvenile proceedings included plea negotiations: Brown (through counsel) stipulated to probable cause and lack of amenability and agreed to a joint recommendation of an 8-year sentence if bound over to adult court.
- Brown’s parents opposed the plea and attempted to retain private counsel, but Brown confirmed he wished to proceed with appointed counsel and accept the plea.
- After transfer, Brown was indicted in adult court, pled guilty, and was sentenced to an aggregate 8 years (including a 3-year firearm specification).
- Brown appealed, arguing (1) the juvenile court accepted an invalid waiver of an amenability hearing, (2) the court should have appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL), and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel in juvenile court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Brown’s waiver of an amenability hearing knowing, intelligent, and voluntary? | The juvenile court conducted an adequate on-the-record colloquy and Brown knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the amenability hearing. | The court failed to explain what amenability means and neglected to detail statutory factors and the R.C. 2152.12(C) investigation, so the waiver was not valid. | Waiver was valid: the court’s colloquy satisfied Juv.R. 3(D)/D.W. and Brown showed no prejudice. |
| Should a guardian ad litem have been appointed? | No; parents’ disagreement with the plea did not create a conflict of interest with the child sufficient to require a GAL. | Parents opposed the plea and attempted to retain private counsel, creating an obvious conflict that required appointment of a GAL under Juv.R. 4(B)(2) and R.C. 2151.281(A)(2). | No abuse of discretion: record showed no colorable conflict and Brown had counsel; Brown failed to show prejudice from lack of GAL. |
| Was Brown denied effective assistance of counsel in juvenile court? | Counsel negotiated a favorable plea and had no basis to object to the colloquy or GAL decision; performance was within reasonable professional judgment. | Counsel was deficient for failing to object to an inadequate amenability colloquy and to request a GAL. | No ineffective assistance: counsel’s conduct was not deficient and Brown failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. D.W., 978 N.E.2d 894 (Ohio 2012) (sets the two-step requirement for a juvenile’s waiver of an amenability hearing)
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1966) (recognizes transfer/waiver's critical-stage consequences for juveniles)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)