IN RE: S.D.
APPEAL NOS. C-200304, C-200305, C-200306, C-200307
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
August 11, 2021
[Cite as In re S.D., 2021-Ohio-2747.]
ZAYAS, Presiding Judge.
TRIAL NOS. 19-5152X, 19-5153X, 19-5154X, 19-5155X. Appeals From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court. Judgments Appealed From Are: Affirmed.
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, Jessica Moss, Assistant Public Defender, and Robert Jones, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION.
{¶1} S.D. appeals the judgments of the Hamilton County Juvenile Court overruling his motion to dismiss the rape charge and imposing serious youthful offender dispositional sentences for rape and three counts of importuning. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
Factual Background
{¶2} On October 15, 2019, complaints were filed against S.D. alleging rape, a felony of the first degree if committed by an adult, and three counts of importuning, felonies of the third degree if committed by an adult. On October 25, 2019, the state filed motions for relinquishments on each case. After the parties stipulated to probable cause, the juvenile court conducted an amenability hearing and retained jurisdiction, finding S.D. was amenable to treatment within the juvenile system.
{¶3} On March 12, 2020, S.D. filed a motion to dismiss the charge, seeking to reduce or dismiss the rape charge after S.D. was indicted for rape and three counts of importuning, and each count alleged S.D. was subject to a serious youthful offender (“SYO“) designation. The motion focused on the mitigating factors with respect to S.D. The juvenile court overruled the motion.
{¶4} On June 17, 2020, S.D. filed a motion to dismiss under
{¶5} The court took the matter under advisement and stated: “I‘m acutely aware of the status of the young man, the history of the young man, what happened here. I‘m acutely aware of community safety as well as obviously what‘s happened to him and these allegations.” The juvenile court overruled the motion on July 16, 2020, at the initial disposition hearing.
{¶6} S.D. also filed a motion in opposition to an SYO designation, arguing that the irrebuttable presumption of a mandatory term violates due process as applied to juveniles because it treats all juveniles as culpable as adults, and that the mandatory sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment because it prevents the court from considering youth as a factor and is the equivalent of life without parole. At the final disposition hearing, S.D. also argued that applying the SYO sentence to him was unconstitutional. The juvenile court committed S.D. to the Department of Youth Services for an aggregate term of a minimum of 36 months, with the maximum not to exceed his 21st birthday. The court also imposed a stayed adult sentence of 15 years to life incarceration in the Department of Corrections as part of the SYO disposition.
{¶7} S.D. now appeals, challenging the juvenile court‘s decision overruling his motion to dismiss the rape charge and the imposition and constitutionality of the serious youthful offender designations.
{¶8} First, S.D. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to dismiss the rape charge because the record established that the court was able to achieve the same outcome as to treatment, consequences, disposition, and registration requirements without the adjudication for rape.
{¶9} A juvenile court has broad discretion to dismiss a case after adjudication if dismissal is in the “best interest of the child and the community.”
{¶10} Essentially, S.D. argues that the juvenile court should have dismissed or reduced the rape charge because S.D. suffered horrific abuse as a child and never received appropriate treatment and the record shows the court could achieve the same outcome if the charge was reduced or dismissed. Although S.D.‘s abuse and lack of treatment was well documented, the record does not support S.D.‘s assertion that the court could achieve the same outcome under these circumstances.
{¶11} The record contains evidence that S.D., who was 18 at the time of disposition, was 17 years old when the offenses occurred, the offenses represented a pattern of conduct involving four young children ranging in age from five to 11 years old, the juvenile resources may not be adequate to successfully rehabilitate S.D. or
{¶12} In his second assignment of error, S.D. contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it imposed a serious youthful offender designation on him. S.D. correctly states that an appellate court reviews the imposition of an SYO sentence under
{¶13} Under
If the juvenile court on the record makes a finding that, given the nature and circumstances of the violation and the history of the child, the length of time, level of security, and types of programming and resources available in the juvenile system alone are not adequate to provide the juvenile court with a reasonable expectation that the purposes set forth in section 2152.01 of the Revised Code will be met, the juvenile court may impose upon the child a sentence available for the violation, as if the child were an adult, under
Chapter 2929. of the Revised Code, except that the juvenile court shall not impose on the child a sentence of death or life imprisonment without parole.
{¶14} The purposes of
{¶15} S.D. acknowledges that the juvenile court made the requisite findings, and instead argues that the court did not provide its reasons for the findings and that the record did not support the court‘s findings. S.D. claims that the offenses were not a pattern because they occurred over a short time period and further argues that the record supported a finding that the juvenile system was adequate to meet the purposes of
{¶16} However, those four witnesses testified in support of Abraxas over a DYS placement. Abraxas is a residential facility that provides sex offender treatment to juveniles. Blazer, a high school intervention specialist, testified that the pending prison sentence would help motivate S.D. to successfully complete the juvenile treatment at Abraxas. Lakamp, a speech therapist, expressed her hope that S.D. would remain in the juvenile system. Family friend Niederhelm expressed her support for the Abraxas program, and Stevens, who works at Abraxas, explained to the court that the program was appropriate for S.D. None of these witnesses testified that Abraxas was sufficient to rehabilitate S.D.
{¶17} None of the sex offender experts who testified about S.D.‘s amenability to treatment definitively concluded that S.D. would be successfully treated in the juvenile system within the relevant time frame. Dr. Bassman, who had not met with S.D., discussed the importance of treatment and aftercare and testified that more
{¶18} Based on this record, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a serious youthful offender disposition. We overrule the second assignment of error.
{¶19} S.D. asserts, in his third assignment of error, that the mandatory sentencing scheme in
{¶20} In Patrick, the Ohio Supreme Court determined that a trial court must consider a juvenile‘s youth as a mitigating factor when imposing a life sentence on a juvenile who was convicted as an adult. Id. at ¶ 27. The Ohio Supreme Court concluded that “age is undoubtedly a relevant factor that should be considered when a trial court sentences an offender who was a juvenile when he or she committed the offense, and therefore, youth is a relevant sentencing consideration under
{¶21} However, S.D was not bound over, convicted, and sentenced as an adult. Instead, S.D.‘s disposition consisted of a juvenile disposition and a stayed adult sentence. As previously discussed, before imposing an adult sentence,
{¶22} In determining whether to impose the discretionary adult sentence on S.D., the juvenile court considered “the nature and circumstances of the violation and the history of the child” and the purposes of
{¶23} Unlike the adult sentencing statutes considered in Patrick, the juvenile statutes require the court to consider the child‘s youth before imposing an SYO sentence. Juvenile judges must consider youth as a mitigating factor in determining whether to impose an SYO classification and sentence. Thus, the reasoning applied
{¶24} S.D. further argues that his adult sentence violates due process because the adult sentencing statute presumes that he is as morally culpable as an adult. We first note that the juvenile sentencing scheme considers the differences between juveniles and adults by prohibiting an adult sentence of life without parole and requiring that the adult sentence be stayed pending the successful completion of the juvenile disposition. See
{¶25} Finally, citing to our recent decision in In re D.R., 2021-Ohio-1797, ___ N.E.3d ___ (1st Dist.), S.D. contends that his procedural due process rights were violated because
{¶26} Here, the juvenile court made an individualized determination before imposing an SYO sentence. Additionally, before the adult sentence may be invoked, the juvenile must engage in additional serious wrongdoing, and after a hearing, the court must determine the juvenile is unlikely to be rehabilitated during the remaining period of the juvenile jurisdiction. See
{¶27} Consequently, we overrule S.D.‘s third assignment of error.
Conclusion
{¶28} Finding S.D.‘s three assignments of error to be without merit, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
CROUSE and BOCK, JJ., concur.
Please note: The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.