Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton
Appeals From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court Trial Nos.
T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E.
Adams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee
State of Ohio,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Julie
Kahrs Nessler, Assistant Public Defender, for
R.B. has appealed the judgments of the juvenile court
continuing his classification as a Tier I juvenile-offender
registrant under Ohio's version of the Adam Walsh Act. We
vacate the judgments of the juvenile court continuing
RB.'s Tier I classification, because we hold that the
juvenile court had no jurisdiction to enter an order
continuing R.B.'s Tier I classification after he had
turned 21 and his disposition, by its own terms, had ended.
On October 14, 2011, RB. admitted in juvenile court to acts
which if committed by an adult would have constituted two
counts of gross sexual imposition, felonies of the fourth
degree. R.B., who was 14 when he committed the acts, admitted
to placing his penis into the mouths of his two four-year-old
cousins. The magistrate entered an order in both cases
stating that the parties agreed that "this is a Tier I
offense." On December 2, 2011, RB. was committed to the
Department of Youth Services ("DYS") until age 21.
The commitment was suspended, and he was placed on probation
and ordered to complete the residential treatment program at
At a hearing on January 13, 2012, the magistrate stated on
the record that the parties had agreed that RB. would be
classified as a Tier I juvenile-offender registrant, and the
parties agreed with the magistrate's statement on the
record. The same day, the magistrate issued a decision in
each case, which erroneously stated in the body that RB. was
a Tier III sex offender, but at the end of each entry is
typed "THIS IS A TIER I CLASSIFICATION-NOT TIER
III." The entries contain the RC. 2152.84 and 2152.85
modification or termination language. RB. was notified of his
Tier I registration duties, and both R.B. and his mother
signed the notice of registration duties. There was no
objection to the January 13, 2012 decisions.
On February 6, 2013, RB.'s Altercrest placement was
terminated. The juvenile court entered an order on July 29,
2013, releasing R.B. from official probation and placing him
on nonreporting probation with monitored time. On September
3, 2014, the magistrate denied R.B.'s application to seal
the record and noted that he was required to register until
2022 unless reclassified.
The state filed a motion to set a completion-of-disposition
hearing on October 24, 2016. R.B. objected on the basis that
the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to hold a
completion-of-disposition hearing. R.B. argued that his
end-of-disposition hearing under R.C. 2152.84 was held too
late, because it should have been held when he completed his
court-ordered treatment, in the alternative, he argued that
the hearing was being held too early, because he had not yet
completed his disposition. On January 30, 2017, the
magistrate ordered the completion-of-disposition hearing to
be held. RB.'s objection was overruled by the juvenile
court, which found that it had jurisdiction to hold the
completion-of-disposition hearing. The magistrate held the
completion-of-disposition hearing on May 8, 2017. On July 13
and 14, 2017, the magistrate entered decisions continuing
RB.'s Tier I classification. R.B. filed objections.
On July 20, 2017, R.B. turned 21 years of age. The juvenile
court held a hearing on RB.'s objections on September 19,
2017. On October 30, 2017, the juvenile court denied
RB.'s objections and adopted the magistrate's
decisions continuing RB.'s Tier I classification. RB. has
This court entered an order advising counsel of an issue,
identified by the court but not raised in the parties'
briefs, to be addressed at oral argument. We framed the issue
Did the juvenile court have jurisdiction to enter an order
continuing RB.'s Tier I classification after he turned 21
and his disposition, by its own terms, had ended? Be prepared
to discuss the impact, if any, of State v. Amos,2017-O ...