Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re of D. A. G. Adjudicated Delinquent Child

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District

July 26, 2013

IN THE MATTER OF: D. A. G. Adjudicated Delinquent Child

Timothy Young, Ohio State Public Defender, and Charlyn Bohland, Assistant State Public Defender, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.

Matthew S. Schmidt, Ross County Prosecuting Attorney, and Robert C. Hess, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Chillicothe, Ohio, for Appellee.

DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Matthew W. McFarland Presiding Judge

{¶ 1} Appellant, D.G., appeals the trial court's decisions that adjudicated him a delinquent child and that imposed previously-stayed commitments to the Department of Youth Services (DYS) after he entered admissions to violating the conditions of his probation. He contends that his admissions are invalid because the trial court failed to substantially comply with Juv.R. 29(D)(1). Specifically, D.G. claims that the court failed to ascertain that he understood the nature of the allegations and the consequences of his admissions. He further argues that the court failed to substantially comply with Juv.R. 29(D)(2) because it did not advise him of, and ascertain that he understood, his right to remain silent at the adjudicatory hearing, if one were held. Because the trial court asked D.G. whether he understood the allegations and explained that admitting the complaint would result in a commitment of six months up to D.G.'s 21st birthday, the court substantially complied with Juv.R. 29(D)(1). Moreover, even though the court did not specifically mention D.G.'s right to remain silent at the hearing, the totality of the circumstances shows that D.G. was aware of that right and understood that right.

{¶ 2} D.G. additionally argues that the trial court plainly erred by failing to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent his interests during the probation violation proceedings. He contends that Juv.R. 4(B) and R.C. 2151.281(A) required the court to appoint a guardian ad litem because his interests conflicted with those of his parents. We disagree. The record does not contain any suggestion that D.G's parents held interests inconsistent with D.G. 's interests. In fact, D.G. 's mother implored the court not to commit D.G. to DYS and to allow him to return home. Because the record fails to show a potential for conflict between D.G. and his parents, the trial court did not plainly err by failing to appoint a guardian ad litem. Accordingly, we overrule D.G.'s two assignments of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.

I. FACTS

{¶ 3} This case involves a consolidated appeal from two juvenile court judgments finding that D.G. violated the terms of probation previously imposed in two delinquency cases and that committed him to the Department of Youth Services (DYS).

A. Case Number 2011DEL208

{¶ 4} On June 17, 2011, a complaint was filed that alleged D.G. was a delinquent child for committing domestic violence (case number 2011DEL0208). On June 20, 2011, the court appointed attorney Walter Bevins to act as D.G.'s counsel and guardian ad litem.

{¶ 5} On September 27, 2011, the magistrate adjudicated D.G. a delinquent child for committing domestic violence. On October 21, 2011, the court ordered that D.G. be committed to DYS for a minimum period of six months and a maximum period not to exceed his 21st birthday. The court suspended the commitment and placed D.G. on probation.

{¶ 6} On December 8, 2011, April 10, 2012, September 20, 2012, and October 29, 2012, D.G.'s probation officer filed notices of violation of conditions of a court order.

B. Case Number 2012DEL0153

{¶ 7} On April 25, 2012, a complaint containing two counts of domestic violence was filed (case number 2012DEL0153). On April 26, 2012, the court appointed attorney Bevins to act as counsel for D.G. The court did not appoint Bevins as guardian ad litem, and it did not appoint anyone else as D.G. 's guardian ad litem.

{¶ 8} On June 1, 2012, the magistrate adjudicated D.G. a delinquent child for committing two acts of domestic violence and found that the domestic violence acts violated the terms of probation imposed in the 2011 case. On July 12, 2012, the court committed D.G. to DYS for a minimum of six months and a maximum period not to exceed his 21st birthday. The court suspended the commitment and placed D.G. on probation.

{¶ 9} On September 20, 2012, and October 29, 2012, D.G.'s probation officer filed notices of violation of conditions of a court order.

C. Probation Violations

{¶ 10} On September 20, 2012, D.G.'s probation officer alleged that D.G. violated probation in both the 2011 and 2012 cases by failing to obey all laws (a new complaint was filed that alleged D.G. to be delinquent as a result of committing theft, case number 2012DEL238). On October 2, 2012, the magistrate held a hearing regarding the probation violations.[1] At the start of the hearing, D.G. 's counsel stated: "Enter admission to the violation your Honor. Waive reading of the violation, advisement of rights, and possible penalties." The magistrate explained:

"[D.G.] the violation is basically you are on probation on these other two charges and the violation is * * * well basically that you have been convicted of a * * * theft offense that is pending disposition and that is a violation of your probation. Do you understand that?
[D.G.] Yes I know * * * I wasn't taking my medicine and I'm sorry.
[Magistrate]: Okay. You understand that if you admit the violation you are stating that it's true.?
[D.G.] Yes and I admit it.
[Magistrate]: You understand the possible dispositions which could include * * * imposition of the suspended commitment to [DYS]?
[D.G.]: Yes.
[Magistrate]: Court will accept the admission to the violation. * * * [A]nything else you want to tell me [D.G.]?
[D.G.]: No Ma'am
[Magistrate]: You understand also by admitting the violation that means there won't be a trial. You waive that right, you waive the right to remain silent[?]
[D.G.]: Yes.
[Magistrate]: And you waive your right to cross-examine any witnesses, okay. You think you are ready to go home?
[D.G.]: I think so."

{¶ 11} On October 9, 2012, D.G. admitted that he violated probation in the 2011 and 2012 cases.

{¶ 12} On October 29, 2012, D.G.'s probation officer alleged that D.G. violated probation in the 2011 and 2012 cases by failing to obey his parents, teachers, and school administrators and by failing to attend school. On that same date, the magistrate held a hearing regarding the probation violations and regarding a new delinquency complaint involving D.G. D.G.'s counsel stated that he "waive[d] reading of the complaint and * * * advisement of rights and possible penalties and an admission to the violation." The magistrate asked D.G.:

"Okay [D.G. do] you understand the violation?
[D.G.] Yes I was * * * what is it called a place that will help me with * * * I don't know what it is called. [sic]
[Magistrate]: Do you understand the allegations of the violation?
[D.G.]: Yes I understand those.
[Magistrate]: Okay and you understand that if you admit the * * *
[D.G.]: Rehab, I wish to go to rehab.
[Magistrate]: Okay but let me; I need you to answer my questions here.
[D.G.]: Okay.
[Magistrate]: You understand that if you admit the violation there won't be a trial on that violation?
[D.G.] Yeah I know.
[Magistrate]: Okay and you understand that means you give up your right to have that trial and to cross-examine any witnesses and to call any witnesses on ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.