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 R.B.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton

August 16, 2019

IN RE: R.B.

          Appeals From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court Trial Nos. 11-9083X, 11-9085X

          Joseph 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 Defendant-Appellant R.B.

          OPINION

          Crouse, Judge.

         {¶1} 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.

         I. Procedural Background

         {¶2} 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 Altercrest.

         {¶3} 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.

         {¶4} 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.

         {¶5} 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.

         {¶6} 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 appealed.

         II. Analysis

         {¶7} 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 as:

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 ...

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.