In re R.A.
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender and Brooke M. Burns, Assistant State Public Defender, 250 East Broad Street, #1400, Columbus, OH 43215-9308 (For Appellant R.A.).
MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J.
{¶1} R.A. appeals a delinquency adjudication which stemmed from his involvement in a robbery. He claims the court failed to comply with the requirements of
{¶2} Sustentative Facts and Procedural History
{¶4} While R.A. was confined in the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Detention Center, he had an argument with a detention center staff member over a letter, which escalated into a physical altercation between him and another staff member. As a result, a second complaint was filed, also in the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court, charging him with two counts of assault, in violation of
{¶5} On July 16, 2009, the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court held an adjudicatory hearing in both cases. After accepting his admission in both cases, the court adjudicated him delinquent on the assault charges. The court also adjudicated him delinquent on an amended charge of complicity to aggravated robbery with a one-year firearm specification, after finding that he was not the principal offender in the robbery and had not specifically targeted the victims for robbery.
{¶6} At the hearing, the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court proceeded to the disposition of the assault counts. It committed him to the detention center but ordered the matter closed without further action after crediting him for time already served. For his disposition of the aggravated robbery counts, however, the court ordered him transferred to Portage County Juvenile Court, because he is a resident of that county.
{¶7} The Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, after a dispositional hearing, committed R.A. to the custody of the Ohio Department of Youth
{¶8} R.A. now appeals from the judgment raising the following two assignments of error:
{¶9} “[1.] The juvenile court committed plain error and violated [R.A.‘s] right to due process when it accepted his statement as an admission and adjudicated him delinquent of aggravated robbery without complying with the requirements of
{¶10} “[2.] [R.A.] was denied the effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to object to the juvenile court‘s failure to comply with the requirements of
{¶11} R.A. contends the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court did not comply with
{¶12} “Juvenile delinquency proceedings must comport with the requirements of due process.” In re Jordan, 11th Dist. No. 2001-T-0067, 2002-Ohio-2820, ¶10, citing In re Gault (1967), 387 U.S. 1. “Ohio codified the due process requirement in
{¶13} “Before the court may accept a juvenile‘s admission, the court must personally address the juvenile and conduct an on-the-record discussion to ascertain whether the admission is voluntary and is made with an understanding of the nature of the allegations and the possible ramifications of the admission.” In re Jackson (Nov. 14, 2001), 9th Dist. No. 20647, 2001 Ohio App. Lexis 5074, *7. citing
{¶14} Furthermore, in construing
{¶15} The juvenile court‘s degree of compliance with
{¶16} Here, at the adjudicatory hearing, prior to accepting his admission to the assault charges, the court engaged in the requisite
{¶17} Immediately after finding R.A. delinquent on the assault counts, the court proceeded to ask R.A. to describe what occurred on the night of the robbery. After R.A. related the incident, the court, without any further inquiry or discussion, found R.A. delinquent regarding the aggravated robbery charges. The court did not engage in any colloquy with R.A to ensure he understood that robbery was a first-degree felony if committed by an adult, or that the charge carried a firearm specification. Neither did the court inform him of the consequences of his admission, namely, that he could be committed to the Department of Youth Services. The court also failed to inform R.A. that the firearm specification would result in an additional mandatory term of
{¶18} R.A. did not raise an objection in the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court regarding the trial court‘s acceptance of his admission. However, the courts have recognized that a trial court‘s failure to substantially comply with
{¶19} Therefore, we sustain R.A.‘s first assignment of error.1 The ineffective assistance-of-counsel claim raised in his second assignment of error is moot.
{¶20} The judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. For the new adjudication hearing, the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is to decide whether to transfer the proceedings back to Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court pursuant to
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.,
COLLEEN MARY O‘TOOLE, J.,
concur.