Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2014 Ohio 3155

In Re I.A.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 22, 2014

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 2014-07-22

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably In Re D.S. (2016), State v. Buttery (Slip Opinion) (2020)

34 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(B)(1) The court that adjudicates a child a delinquent child, on the judge's own motion, may conduct at the time of disposition of the child or, if the court commits the child for the delinquent act to the custody of a secure facility, may conduct at the time of the child's release from the secure facility a hearing for the purposes described in division (B)(2) of this section if all of the following apply: (a) The act for which the child is adjudicated a delinquent child is a sexually oriented offense or a child-victim oriented offense that the child committed on or after January 1, 2002. (b) The child was fourteen or fifteen years of age at the time of committing the offense. (c) The court was not required to classify the child a juvenile offender registrant under section 2152.82 of the Revised Code or as both a juvenile offender registrant and a public registry-qualified juvenile offender registrant under section 2152.86 of the Revised Code. (2) A judge shall conduct a hearing under division (B)(1) of this section to review the effectiveness of the disposition made of the child and of any treatment provided for the child placed in a secure setting and to determine whether the child should be classified a juvenile offender registrant. The judge may conduct the hearing on the judge's own initiative or based upon a recommendation of an officer or employee of the department of youth services, a probation officer, an employee of the court, or a prosecutor or law enforcement off”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including In re S.J., In re L.N.

Relies on Pizza v. Sunset Fireworks Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2014-07-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

French, J.,

¶1concurring in judgment only.

¶2(¶ 19} I agree that it was proper for the juvenile court to hold a classification hearing at the time of I.A.’s disposition. I write separately, however, to disavow the notion — as stated in the court of appeals’ opinion, 2012-Ohio-4973, ¶ 15, and as suggested by the majority at ¶ 14 and 17 — that the juvenile court could have also held a second R.C. 2152.83(B) hearing at the time of I.A.’s release. R.C. 2152.83(B) authorizes only a single hearing. A juvenile court may choose to hold that hearing either at the juvenile’s disposition or at the time of the juvenile’s release, but not at both.

*209Mathias H. Heck Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew T. French and Matthew T. Crawford, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.Timothy Young, State Public Defender, and Amanda J. Powell, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

¶3{¶ 20} R.C. 2152.83(B)(1) provides that a juvenile court “may conduct at the time of disposition of the child or, if the court commits the child for the delinquent act to the custody of a secure facility, may conduct at the time of the child’s release from the secure facility a hearing.” (Emphasis added.) Although the statute unambiguously provides a court with two options, the connector “or” separates them, indicating distinct alternatives. Pizza v. Sunset Fireworks Co., Inc., 25 Ohio St.3d 1, 4-5, 494 N.E.2d 1115 (1986). A juvenile court may choose option one (a hearing at disposition) or option two (a hearing at release), but it cannot choose both.

¶4{¶ 21} Indeed, R.C. 2152.83(B)(2) authorizes only a single hearing. (“A judge shall conduct a hearing under division (B)(1) of this section … ”). And the remainder of the statute unambiguously refers to the R.C. 2152.83(B) hearing as a one-time event. See R.C. 2152.83(B)(1) (juvenile court “may conduct … a hearing” [emphasis added]), 2152.83(B)(2) (“The judge may conduct the hearing”-, “If the judge conducts the hearing”-, “upon completion of the hearing” [emphasis added]), and 2152.83(C)(1) (referring to “the hearing under division (B) of this section” [emphasis added]).

¶5{¶ 22} Given the consistent, plain language of the statute, I cannot support the idea that “a court ‘may’ choose to conduct a hearing at both times.” 2012-Ohio-4973, ¶ 15. A juvenile court has discretion over the timing of its R.C. 2152.83(B) hearing, but there can be only one hearing.

/2014/ohio/3155 · .json · Public domain