In re W.B.
Case Information
*1
[Cite as
In re W.B.
,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO IN RE: W.B. :
: C.A. CASE NO. 24314 : T.C. NO. 20102995-01 : (Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division)
:
:
. . . . . . . . . .
O P I N I O N
Rendered on the 9 th day of September , 2011. . . . . . . . . . .
LAURA M. WOODRUFF, Atty. Reg. No. 0084161, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W. Third Street, 5 th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Ohio GLEN H. DEWAR, Atty. Reg. No. 0042077, 500 East Fifth Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant W.B.
. . . . . . . . . .
DONOVAN, J. *2 This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Appeal of W.B., filed
October 28, 2010. On April 8, 2010, W.B. was alleged to be a delinquent child by way of Complaint in the Juvenile Division of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, for the act of aggravated robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), a felony of the first degree, along with a firearm specification. The juvenile court appointed counsel to represent W.B. and also appointed a guardian ad litem to protect W.B.’s interests. W.B. was placed in detention. On April 22, 2010, pursuant to a plea agreement, W.B. pled guilty to
aggravated robbery with a gun specification in exchange for the dismissal of a second pending aggravated robbery complaint with an attendant gun specification, and also in exchange for the dismissal of a probation violation notice. W.B. asserts two assignments of error herein. His first assignment of
error is as follows: “THE LOWER COURT VIOLATED W.B.’S RIGHTS UNDER THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND JUVENILE RULE 29(D) BY ACCEPTING W.B.’S ADMISSION TO AGGRAVATED ROBBERY WITH A GUN SPECIFICATION WITHOUT FIRST DETERMINING THAT W.B.’S ADMISSION WAS KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY.” According to W.B., while the juvenile court explained to him the nature of
the allegations and the consequences that W.B. was facing, the court failed to ask
W.B. whether he was making his admission voluntarily, and also failed to advise W.B.
of his right to introduce evidence at an adjudicatory hearing.
“This state’s courts have construed
‘analogous to’
admission without addressing the party personally and determining both of the following: “(1) The party is making the admission voluntarily with understanding of
the nature of the allegations and the consequences of the admission; “(2) The party understands that by entering an admission the party is waiving the right to challenge the witnesses and evidence against the party, to remain silent, and to introduce evidence at the adjudicatory hearing.” “* * * .”
At issue is whether the Juvenile Court Judge’s colloquy demonstrates
substantial compliance with the requirements of
The following exchange occurred after the judge recited the terms of the plea agreement into the record:
“THE COURT: * * * I need to make sure you understand what your constitutional rights are.
“You always have the right - - in addition to having an attorney with you in court, you have the right to always remain silent.
“You have the right to have this matter set for trial. Each one of these different aggravated robberies could be set for trial, and if there were trials on these cases, the State would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are responsible of these charges.
“Your attorney would have the right to cross-examine any State witness as well as subpoena people to testify if they wouldn’t come in voluntarily, people who you would want to come in to testify.
“Do you understand those different constitutional rights that you have? “[W.B.]: Yes, Your Honor.
“THE COURT: Do you realize that if you want to go forward today, you need to waive, or give up, those constitutional rights?
“[W.B.]: Yes, Your Honor.
“THE COURT: And are you willing to give up those constitutional rights today? *5 “[W.B.]: Yes, Your Honor. “THE COURT: Has anyone forced you or threatened you to give up
those rights? “[W.B.] No.” The court then explained the nature of the allegations and “possible
dispositions,” and ascertained W.B.’s understanding thereof. The court then asked counsel for W.B., “* * * Do you believe he understood and proeprly and voluntarily waived
his constitutional rights?” Counsel for W.B. responded that he believed W.B.
understood his rights and the waiver thereof, and he indicted to the court that he had
reviewed W.B.’s rights with him and the waiver thereof. The court then asked
counsel for W.B. if he believed W.B.’s admission was voluntary, and counsel
responded in the affirmative. The court then asked the same questions of the
Guardian ad Litem, who responded in the affirmative. Finally, the court accepted
W.B.’s admission and noted, “I believe he’s made a voluntary admission,
understanding the plea agreement and the benefits his attorney has been able to
accomplish on his behalf.”
We agree with the State that the juvenile court complied with
ADVISE APPELLANT OF HIS RIGHT TO RECORD EXPUNGEMENT.”
failed to comply with
juvenile court is affirmed; however, this matter is remanded, pursuant to
. . . . . . . . . .
FROELICH, J. and HALL, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Laura M. Woodruff
Glen H. Dewar
Hon. Anthony Capizzi