301 N.E.2d 907 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1973
These are two separate cases with the same fact situations in which two brothers, while under the age of eighteen, were found delinquent by the juvenile court but left the jurisdiction of the juvenile court before they could be sent to the Ohio youth commission. They both returned to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court after they were over the age of twenty-one. Both brothers, appellants herein, are appealing the order of the juvenile court which committed both of them to the Mahoning County jail for a period of six months, pursuant to R. C.
These cases raise the question, for the first time in this court, of the extent of the dispositional authority of the juvenile court over such persons under these circumstances.
On May 11, 1968, two complaints were filed against Edward and Jerry Cox, both of whom were under the age of eighteen years, for committing an assault and battery upon Bruce Jardine in violation of R. C.
The pertinent findings of fact of Referee Joseph R. Bryan, which were approved December 11, 1972, in both cases as the final order of the juvenile court, are as follows:
"2. Trial was held on the charge. The subject child was represented by counsel at the trial. He was found to have violated O. R. C.
"3. Subsequent to the adjudication of delinquency, hearing on disposition was set for October 16, 1968. At *67 that time, the Court was advised the subject child had left the jurisdiction, and his whereabouts were unknown. An entry was docketed committing the subject child to the permanent custody of the Ohio Youth Commission. In fact, the order was never effected, and the Ohio Youth Commission never received custody.
"4. At the time of the offense, the trial, the adjudication, and the dispositional hearing and entry, the subject child was a child as defined in O. R. C.
"5. No further proceedings or events took place until the subject child recently returned to this jurisdiction and was apprehended in Mahoning County. He was placed in jail on October 25, 1972."
At the time of the last hearing Edward Cox was twenty-two years of age and Jerry Cox was twenty-one years of age.
R. C.
We hold that the juvenile court had jurisdiction over both appellants.
The juvenile court's dispositional authority under the facts of this case is provided in R. C.
R. C.
Under the facts in this case, the juvenile court was limited to the following dispositions under R. C.
"* * * (F) Impose a fine not to exceed fifty dollars * * *
"(I) Make such further disposition as the court finds proper."
The juvenile court held that in view of the acts committed *68
by appellants, R. C.
Appellants' first assignment of error is that the juvenile court exceeded its jurisdiction by making a final commitment of them to the county jail inasmuch as there is no specific statutory provision for such action.
Appellants' second assignment of error is that the order of the juvenile court committing appellants to a county jail without specific statutory provision for such commitment violates the due process clause of the
We will discuss both of these assignments of error together, because they are interrelated.
Neither counsel cited any case authority pertinent to the question raised in this case so we must decide these cases on the applicable statutes.
We hold that the authority of the juvenile court under R. C.
R. C.
Appellants contend, in effect, that even though the juvenile court had jurisdiction over appellants, the legislature did not provide any authority to the juvenile court to incarcerate these appellants on a final order. Even though appellants were in continuous contempt of the juvenile court from 1968 until they appeared before the court in 1972, because they disobeyed the order of the juvenile court to report to the Ohio youth commission (R. C.
R. C.
However, in the instant case, appellants contemptuously defied the order of the juvenile court to report to the Ohio youth commission by leaving the jurisdiction of such court until they were over twenty-one years old. Now that they are over twenty-one years old, they contend that they must be given the same protections under the law as a person under eighteen years old and since they circumvented such provisions by leaving the jurisdiction of the juvenile court until they were over twenty-one years old, no court can do anything to them.
We feel that appellants had their opportunity to take advantage of the protective provisions of R. C. *70
Chapter 2151 in 1968 by complying with the order of the juvenile court to report to the Ohio youth commission. We hold that when a child as defined by R. C.
We feel that this holding conforms with the legislative intent of R. C. Chapter 2151. In addition, we feel that appellants are estopped from claiming the protective provisions of R. C. Chapter 2151 pertaining to persons under eighteen years of age when they contemptuously defied the order of the juvenile court to report to the Ohio youth commission by leaving the jurisdiction of such court until they were twenty-one years old.
The next question is whether the juvenile court had the authority to commit these appellants to the county jail pursuant to R. C.
R. C.
We hold that when a child, as defined by R. C.
We hold that both appellants' assignments of error are without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
DONOFRIO and O'NEILL, JJ., concur. *71