Appeal from the Morrow County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division Case No. 2010 JD 00182
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoffman, J.
JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
(¶1) B.T., a juvenile, appeals his disposition entered by the Morrow County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
(¶2) On August 5, 2010, Appellant entered an admission to one count of rape, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b). On September 12, 1010, the trial court conducted a dispositional hearing, during which the court adjudicated Appellant a Tier III juvenile offender registrant. The trial court further ordered Appellant subject to community notification requirements.
(¶3) On November 5, 2010, the trial court, nunc pro tunc, ordered the local school district be responsible for Appellant's education while incarcerated.
(¶4) On November 17, 2010, the trial court again corrected its entry to indicate Appellant is not a public registry qualified juvenile offender registrant, but a Tier III juvenile offender registrant, subject to community notification.
(¶5) Appellant now appeals, assigning as error:
(¶6) "I. THE MORROW COUNTY JUVENILE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FOUND THAT B.T.'S CLASSIFICATION AS A TIER III JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRANT WAS MANDATORY IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2950.01(E)-(G).
(¶7) "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED B.T. TO BE SUBJECT TO COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION. R.C. 2152.82(B)(4); R.C. 2950.11 (F)(2).
(¶8) "III. THE MORROW COUNTY JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT IMPROPERLY NOTIFIED B.T. THAT, AS A JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRANT, HE WAS PROHIBITED FROM LIVING WITHIN ONE THOUSAND FEET FROM A SCHOOL, IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2950.034(A).
(¶9) "IV. B.T. WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH OHIO'S JUVENILE OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES."
(¶10) In the first assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in finding his classification as a Tier III juvenile sex offender registrant mandatory. We disagree.
(¶11) At the September 12, 2010 dispositional hearing, the trial court stated,
(¶12) "THE COURT: Well, before that, let me backup just a bit and because of the nature of this offense, it involves a classification as a sex offender and I don't think there is any question it is tier 3 and depending upon what the Court does with respect to disposition, there could be a review of that, as I understand it, out into the future multiple times conceivably. I just want to make sure that there is no misunderstanding on the record as to that because I'm supposed to make this determination either prior to or ...