IN THE MATTER OF: T.D.R., JR., DELINQUENT CHILD.
CASE NO. 2014-L-109
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
August 17, 2015
[Cite as In re T.D.R., 2015-Ohio-3541.]
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.
Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 2014 IN 01291. Judgment: Affirmed.
Charles R. Grieshammer, Lake County Public Defender, and Charles E. Langmack, Assistant Public Defender, 125 East Erie Street, Painesville, OH 44077 (For Appellant).
OPINION
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.
{¶1} Appellant, T.D.R., an adjudicated delinquent child, appeals from the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, classifying him as a serious youthful offender (“SYO“) and accordingly entering a dispositional sentence pursuant to
{¶2} The incident leading to the underlying charges occurred in Painesville, Lake County, Ohio on July 10, 2014, at a Sunoco station on 265 East Erie Street. Appellant entered the station with another male. A separate customer was at the
{¶3} On July 11, 2014, appellant was charged by complaint with one count of robbery, in violation of
{¶4} On September 11, 2014, appellant pleaded guilty to the charges and specifications. After entry of the guilty pleas, the trial court submitted the matter to a staffing team to prepare a recommendation for disposition/sentencing.
{¶5} On October 1, 2014, a disposition and sentencing hearing was held. For the robbery count, the trial court sentenced appellant to a term of four years imprisonment, with a three-year period of post-release control following his release. The term of imprisonment was stayed pending successful completion of his juvenile disposition. In its juvenile disposition, the court ordered appellant committed to the Department of Youth Services (“DYS“) for a minimum of one year and a maximum period not to exceed appellant‘s 21st birthday. The disposition was stayed based upon
{¶6} For the misdemeanor obstructing official business count, the trial court ordered appellant to serve a 90-day commitment in the Lake County Juvenile Detention Facility. This detention was ordered to be served immediately consecutive to the 90-day detention relating to the robbery count. Appellant now appeals and assigns the following as error:
{¶7} “The trial court erred to the prejudice of the delinquent child-appellant when it classified him as a serious youthful offender and sentenced him to an adult term of four (4) years in the Lorain Correctional Facility, a sentence that does not comport with the factors a trial court must consider before imposing such a sentence as set forth in
{¶8} Under his sole assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court erred by imposing an SYO dispositional sentence after he entered a plea of guilty to an SYO specification. Appellant asserts the trial court failed to consider all relevant factors before entering the SYO adult sentence. Thus, he maintains the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed the SYO dispositional sentence. We do not agree.
{¶9} A juvenile charged as a potential SYO does not face a bindover to the adult court of common pleas. Instead, the case remains under the juvenile court‘s jurisdiction. Under
{¶10} Due to appellant‘s delinquency adjudication for robbery, a second-degree felony, the imposition of the adult sentence was discretionary, not mandatory. See
{¶11} If a child is adjudicated a delinquent child for committing an act under circumstances that allow, but do not require, the juvenile court to impose on the child a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence under section
2152.11 of the Revised Code, all of the following apply:{¶12} (i) 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 Chapter2929. of the Revised Code, except that thejuvenile court shall not impose on the child a sentence of death or life imprisonment without parole. {¶13} (ii) If a sentence is imposed under division (D)(2)(a)(i) of this section, the juvenile court also shall impose upon the child one or more traditional juvenile dispositions under sections
2152.16 ,2152.19 , and2152.20 and, if applicable, section2152.17 of the Revised Code.{¶14} (iii) The juvenile court shall stay the adult portion of the serious youthful offender dispositional sentence pending the successful completion of the traditional juvenile dispositions imposed.
{¶15}
{¶16} (A) The overriding purposes for dispositions under this chapter are to provide for the care, protection, and mental and physical development of children subject to this chapter, protect the public interest and safety, hold the offender accountable for the offender‘s actions, restore the victim, and rehabilitate the offender. * * *
{¶17} Accordingly,
{¶18} Although not directly at issue, it bears noting that the stay on the adult portion of the blended sentence may not be lifted unless certain procedural safeguards are satisfied.
{¶19} With the foregoing framework in mind, we shall proceed to analyze the various issues raised in this appeal. Initially, the state asserts appellant‘s argument is not ripe for review because, to the extent he successfully completes the juvenile disposition, appellant will not actually serve the adult sentence. The state maintains that the validity of appellant‘s SYO sentence will be ripe only if he fails to meet the requirements of the juvenile disposition. The state therefore concludes, the adult sentence, at this point, is merely hypothetical and does not rise to the level of an actual controversy. We do not agree.
{¶20}
{¶21} A child upon whom a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence is imposed under division (D)(1) or (2) of this section has a right to appeal under division (A)(1), (3), (4), or (5) of section
2953.08 of the Revised Code the adult portion of the serious youthful offender dispositional sentence when any of those divisions apply. The child may appeal the adult portion, and the court shall consider the appeal as if the adult portion were not stayed.
{¶22} Appellant is, in effect, arguing his dispositional sentence, imposed as provided under
{¶23} With respect to appellant‘s argument, he does not dispute that his criminal conduct was subject to a discretionary SYO disposition and sentence. Rather, he contends the trial court failed to properly consider the necessary statutory factors before
{¶24} With respect to the latter issue, appellant misunderstands the portion of the SYO dispositional order. As discussed above, the trial court did not send appellant to prison. Instead, pursuant to the SYO specification, the court imposed that sentence, but stayed the same pending successful completion of his time at CCF. To the extent appellant‘s argument is based upon a false premise, it is without merit.
{¶25} Moreover, a review of the record reveals the juvenile court considered all applicable factors in exercising its discretion to enter the blended juvenile/SYO adult sentence. At the dispositional hearing, the trial court stated:
{¶26} Well, young man, you‘ve made choices in your life. Doesn‘t seem that you have much respect for anybody. You don‘t have any respect for our community, you don‘t have any respect for yourself. Says in this report that you told the psychologist that you‘re not scared of anything, detention, the Court, or any authority. You‘re not afraid of the police, you‘re not afraid of me. You don‘t have any respect for authority. That doesn‘t make you very responsible or accountable. * * *
{¶27} * * *
{¶28} The report states he‘s been acting out in the community since elementary school; he‘s been caught lying, stealing, and manipulating; he steals food from stores and clothing and
electronics from other students at school. He shows little to no remorse for his actions. He steals from his mother and has taught his brothers to do so. His peer associations are older, criminally involved and drug-dependent and dealing youth. He latches on to this older gang involved group for acceptance. It sounds to me like this young man needs help. {¶29} It is the disposition of the Court, [T.D.R.], that you are hereby committed to the legal custody of the Ohio Department of Youth Services for institutionalization in a secure facility for an indefinite term of one year and a maximum not to exceed your 21st birthday.
{¶30} In addition, the Court has considered the factors set forth in the applicable provisions of the Ohio Revised Code; to wit:
2929.12 ,2929.13 and2929.14 and other related sections, as well as [T.D.R.‘s] criminal history here with the court, the seriousness of the act, the length of time we have in order to rehabilitate him and the types of programs that are available here and at the CCF.{¶31} I‘ve also considered the Ohio youth assessment full inventory and the psychological evaluation as performed by the Court‘s staff, the staffing team recommendation, and the victim‘s statement at the prior hearing, the arguments of counsel and the lack of statement, even though given an opportunity, by the Juvenile.
{¶32} After making the foregoing findings, the court proceeded to enter its relative dispositional orders on the blended juvenile/SYO adult sentence. It then
{¶33} Given appellant‘s actions, his apparent attitude toward authority, and disregard for others in the community, the court could reasonably conclude the juvenile system alone would be inadequate to meet the purposes of the administration of juvenile justice, as set forth under
{¶34} Appellant‘s assignment of error lacks merit.
{¶35} For the reasons discussed in this opinion, the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is affirmed.
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J., concurs,
COLLEEN MARY O‘TOOLE, J., dissents with a Dissenting Opinion.
IN THE MATTER OF: T.D.R., JR., DELINQUENT CHILD.
CASE NO. 2014-L-109
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
COLLEEN MARY O‘TOOLE, J.
{¶36} Appellant was committed to DYS for a minimum of one year, and a maximum period not to exceed his twenty-first birthday. He was given 90 days in juvenile detention. He was further committed to a CCF. His DYS commitment was stayed pending his successful treatment at the CCF. And, of course, his four year
{¶37} Appellant was only 14 years old at the time of the disposition in this case. While the crime he committed was serious indeed – robbery – he does not have a lengthy history of delinquency. The state did not recommend any sentence on the SYO. Most significant, when and if he completes his stay at the CCF, his remaining detention time is suspended, and he is simply subject to community control.
{¶38} When an SYO dispositional sentence is discretionary with the trial court,
{¶39} I find merit in the assignment of error, and respectfully dissent.