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 T. L.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District

July 30, 2013

IN RE: T. L.

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. A2012-0059

For Plaintiff-Appellee JENNA E. JOSEPH

For Defendant-Appellant CHARLYN BOHLAND

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

OPINION

Farmer, J.

{¶1} On January 26, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Licking County Juvenile Court alleging then thirteen year old appellant, T. L., delinquent for committing rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02. Appellant underwent a psychological evaluation, and a competency report was filed on February 17, 2012 wherein appellant was found to be competent to participate in his own defense and to comprehend the wrongfulness of his actions he had been accused of.

{¶2} On April 24, 2012, appellant admitted to an amended charge of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05. By judgment entry filed same date, the trial court adjudicated appellant as delinquent. By judgment entry filed May 24, 2012, the trial court committed appellant to the Department of Youth services for a minimum of six months to a maximum of his twenty-first birthday. The trial court suspended the commitment on the condition that appellant successfully complete treatment at West Central Rehabilitation Center and follow the rules of probation.

{¶3} Pursuant to a remand by this court, a magistrate's decision was filed on June 14, 2013 setting forth the reasons for finding appellant competent. The trial court approved and adopted the decision on same date. No objections were filed.

{¶4} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:

I

{¶5} "THE JUVENILE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FOUND [T.] COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION."

II

{¶6} "[T.] WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN HE WAS ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT WHEN HE WAS INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL, IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2152.51, R.C. 2152.52, R.C. 2152.58, THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION."

III

{¶7} "[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 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION."

I

{ΒΆ8} Appellant claims the trial court erred in its interpretation of R.C. 2152.52(A)(2) regarding the presumption of competency as it incorrectly applied the statute in reviewing his ...


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.