{¶ 2} The undisputed facts relevant to the issues raised on appeal are as follows. On June 28, 2007, appellant, then 15 years old, was charged with two counts of robbery, felonies of the second degree if committed by an adult, and with violating the terms of his probation on a prior case. On that date, the trial court entered a denial on appellant's behalf and continued the case for counsel to be appointed. Appellant's attorney also served as his guardian ad litem. At a pretrial on July 12, 2007, appellant admitted to two counts of robbery as well as the probation violation and the matter proceeded directly to disposition. The trial court ordered a commitment to the Department of Youth Services for a minimum of one year on each robbery count, to be served concurrently, with the maximum not to exceed the date he attains the age of 21. The trial court also assessed a fine of $100, imposed court costs of $105, ordered full restitution "if any is owed," and suspended appellant's right to apply for a driver's license until he reaches the age of 21. The trial court did not impose a sentence for the probation violation.
{¶ 3} Appellant sets forth four assignments of error:
{¶ 4} "Assignment of Error I
{¶ 5} "The trial court erred in depriving Boss B. of his ability to apply for driving privileges because the statute does not provide for that sanction as a dispositional option for his offense. (Tp. 49).
{¶ 6} "Assignment of Error II *3
{¶ 7} "The July 12, 2007 order requiring restitution deprived Boss B. of his right to due process under the
{¶ 8} "Assignment of Error III
{¶ 9} "The trial court erred when it failed to hold a hearing to determine whether Boss B., an indigent juvenile, was able to pay the sanctions imposed by the juvenile court and failed to consider community service in lieu of the financial sanctions in violation of R.C.
{¶ 10} "Assignment of Error IV
{¶ 11} "Boss B. was denied his constitutional right of effective assistance of counsel under the
{¶ 12} In support of his first assignment of error, appellant asserts that R.C.
{¶ 13} A juvenile court's disposition for a child adjudicated delinquent is a matter within the court's discretion. In re T.H., 12th Dist. No. CA2006-02-021,
{¶ 14} R.C.
{¶ 15} We therefore find that the juvenile court's order in this case simply does not fit within the limited parameters of R.C.
{¶ 16} In his second assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court committed plain error by ordering restitution without holding a hearing to determine the appropriate amount owed the victim and by failing to journalize a specific amount. In this case, at disposition the prosecutor asked the trial court for an order of restitution. The court responded: "* * * [T]here will be restitution for any out of pocket loss incurred as a result of his and his co-defendant's behavior." Nothing further was said. In its judgment entry, the trial court ordered appellant to "* * * make full restitution(if any is owed) through the Juvenile Restitution Program." (Emphasis added.) *6
{¶ 17} The record in this case reflects that the trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing on this issue and never issued a judgment specifying the amount of restitution owed. Ohio courts have held that where restitution is ordered as part of a sentence but no amount is specified in the judgment, reversible error occurs and the case must be remanded for a determination of the amount of restitution. See In re:Alonzo B. (Feb. 12, 1999), 6th Dist. No. E-98-050; In re: Holmes (1980),
{¶ 18} In his third assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred by not holding a hearing to determine whether he was able to pay the monetary sanctions, which consisted of a fine of $100, court costs of $105 and restitution. Appellant also asserts that the trial court erred by failing to consider imposing a term of community service in lieu of financial sanctions.
{¶ 19} R.C.
{¶ 20} Ohio courts have held that a trial court is not mandated to hold a hearing before it imposes financial sanctions against an indigent juvenile. The use of the word "may" in R.C.
{¶ 21} As to whether to impose community control sanctions in lieu of financial sanctions, R.C.
{¶ 22} Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not err by declining to hold a hearing to determine whether appellant was able to pay financial sanctions. Further, appellant has not shown that the trial court failed to consider imposing a community control sanction in lieu of financial sanctions. Accordingly, appellant's third assignment of error is not well-taken. *8
{¶ 23} In his fourth assignment of error, appellant asserts he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to object to the prospective license suspension and the imposition of costs, and failed to request an evidentiary hearing regarding restitution. In light of our decision to remand this matter to the trial court, we find this assignment of error not well-taken because appellant cannot show that he was prejudiced by counsel's performance.
{¶ 24} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed in part and reversed in part and this matter is remanded to the trial court for a new disposition hearing consistent with this decision. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App. R. 24. Judgment for the clerk's expense in preparation of the record, fees allowed by law, and the fee for filing
the appeal is awarded to Lucas County.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, IN PART, AND REVERSED, IN PART.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App. R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist. Loc. App. R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, P.J., Arlene Singer, J., Thomas J. Osowik, J., Concur. *1