Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Coshocton
from the Coshocton County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile
Division, Case Nos. 201420009, 2014CR008
Appellant CHARLYN BOHLAND The Office of the Public Defender
Assistant State Public Defender
Appellee BENJAMIN E. HALL Coshocton County Prosecutor's
Office Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Hon. Patricia A.
Delaney, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
This case comes before this Court from the judgment entered
by the Ohio Supreme Court on February 28, 2018, remanding for
application of State v. Morgan, 2017-Ohio-7566.
Appellant is D.F.; Appellee is the state of Ohio.
On January 17, 2014, the State filed a Bill of Information
alleging D.F. committed two counts of rape, felonies of the
first degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b), with
each charge carrying an attendant serious youthful offender
(SYO) specification, pursuant to R.C. 2152.11(D)(2)(b); and
one count of gross sexual imposition, a third degree felony,
in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4).
Appellant's date of birth is October 18, 1995, and the
offenses were alleged to have occurred between December 3,
2009, and January 16, 2013.
On January 17, 2014, Appellant entered an admission to the
charges. The matter proceeded to disposition on January 30,
2014. The juvenile court committed Appellant to the Ohio
Department of Youth Services for a minimum of two years and
six months, maximum of up to Appellant's twenty-first
birthday. Pursuant to the SYO specification and R.C.
2152.11(D)(2)(b), the court imposed a suspended adult
sentence of life imprisonment with parole eligibility after
15 years on each count of rape, to be served concurrently.
Based upon Appellant's conduct while committed to
on December 23, 2015, the State moved to invoke the suspended
adult sentence under the SYO specification. On October 4,
2016, the trial court conducted a hearing, and imposed an
adult term of incarceration of fifteen years to life. The
trial court on the same date held a hearing and imposed a
juvenile disposition regarding classification. The court
classified Appellant a tier III, Public Registry Qualified
Juvenile Offender Registrant (PRQJOR), pursuant to R.C.
2152.86. The parties and the trial court acknowledged all
juvenile dispositions terminated upon the imposition of an
adult sentence, but "waived any defect to this juvenile
dispositional order and...affirmed its intention for this
juvenile order to survive the adult sentence."
(10/5/2016 Judgment Entry) The court also classified
Appellant a tier III adult registrant. Counsel for Appellant
did not object to the sentence or classifications.
Appellant appealed assigning as error, I. THE JUVENILE COURT
ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO APPOINT A GUARDIAN AD LITEM TO
PROTECT D.F.'S BEST INTERESTS, IN VIOLATION OF R.C.
2151.281(A)(1) AND JUV. R. 4(B)(1).
MANDATORY SENTENCING SCHEME IN R.C. 2971.03 IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT PERMIT THE TRIAL COURT
TO MAKE AN INDIVIDUALIZED DETERMINATION ABOUT D.F.'S
SENTENCE OR THE ATTRIBUTES OF HIS YOUTH, IN VIOLATION OF HIS
RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, AS
GUARANTEED BY THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION,
AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, OHIO CONSTITUTION.
THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT CLASSIFIED D.F. AS A PUBLIC
REGISTRY QUALIFIED JUVENILE OFFENDER REGISTRANT (PRQJOR),
PURSUANT TO R.C. 2152.86, IN VIOLATION OF IN RE C.P., 131
OHIO ST.513, 2012-OHIO-1446, 131 Ohio St.3d 513, 967 N.E.2d
729, ¶ 86.
JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT CLASSIFIED D.F. TO AN ADULT TIER
III REGISTRATION, PURSUANT TO THE ADULT STATUTES, IN
VIOLATION OF R.C. 2152.82, 2152.83, 2152.84, 2152.85, AND
2950.01 (G), (M).
WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION
OF THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION; AND, ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, OHIO CONSTITUTION.
We sustained the first assignment of error, finding the court
erred in failing to appoint a guardian ad litem for
Appellant. We overruled the second assignment of error,
finding the Ohio Supreme Court had addressed the assigned
error concerning constitutionality of the statute. We found
the third, fourth and fifth assignments of error to be
premature based on our disposition of the first assignment of
error. In re: D.F., 5th Dist. Coshocton Nos.
2016CA0015, 2016CA0016, 2017-Ohio-7307.
The state of Ohio appealed our decision to the Ohio Supreme
Court, which accepted jurisdiction over the appeal. On
February 28, 2018, the Supreme Court remanded the case to
this Court for reconsideration of Appellant's direct
appeal. Pursuant to instructions on remand, we address
Appellant's assignments of error.
Appellant argues the trial court erred in failing to appoint
a guardian ad litem for the SYO invocation proceedings and
subsequent sentencing. Appellant did not appear with a parent
or legal guardian for these proceedings, and did not object
to the court's failure to appoint a guardian ad litem.
R.C. 2151.281(A)(1) provides:
(A) The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem, subject to
rules adopted by the supreme court, to protect the interest
of a child in any proceeding concerning an alleged or
adjudicated delinquent child or ...