[Cite as State v. Morrell,
2025-Ohio-2878.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
Hon. Robert G. Montgomery, J.
-vs-
YHANTEG MORRELL Case No. CT2025-0017
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Muskingum County
Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
CR2024-0360
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 14, 2025
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
RON WELCH, ESQ. CHRIS BRIGDON
Muskingum County Prosecuting Attorney 8138 Somerset Road
Thornville, Ohio 43076
JOSEPH A. PALMER
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
27 North Fifth Street
P.O. Box 189
Zanesville, Ohio 43702
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Yhanteg Morrell appeals the judgment entered by the
Muskingum County Common Pleas Court convicting him following his pleas of guilty to
endangering children (R.C. 2919.22(B)(1)) and domestic violence (R.C. 2929.25(A)), and
sentencing him to a term of incarceration of six to nine years. Plaintiff-appellee is the
State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On June 6, 2024, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted Appellant with
attempted abduction, two counts of gross sexual imposition, kidnapping with a sexual
motivation specification, importuning, and three counts of domestic violence. Pursuant
to a negotiated plea, the State amended the charge of kidnapping to endangering children
and dismissed the sexual motivation specification. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to
the amended charge of endangering children, and entered a plea of guilty to one count
of domestic violence. The State dismissed the remaining charges. The victims of the
offenses were the minor children of Appellant’s girlfriend.
{¶3} At the plea hearing, the State set forth the facts of the offenses. As to
endangering children, the State represented in September of 2023, one of the minor
children reported Appellant “had abused her under R.C. 2929.22(B)(1), and that his
actions constituted abuse as inappropriate behavior with her.” Plea Tr. 15. As to the
charge of domestic violence, the other minor child of Appellant’s girlfriend reported
Appellant abused her physically, causing bruising, from February of 2020, through
September of 2023.
{¶4} The trial court convicted Appellant upon his guilty pleas, and the case
proceeded to sentencing. The State argued prison time was mandatory based on
Appellant’s prior juvenile adjudication of aggravated robbery with a Serious Youthful
Offender (hereinafter “SYO”) specification. Appellant argued the juvenile adjudication
could not be used to enhance prison time based on the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision
in State v. Hand, 2016-Ohio-5504. The trial court found prison time was mandatory based
on the prior adjudication with an SYO specification. The trial court sentenced Appellant
to a term of six to nine years of incarceration for endangering children and 180 days
incarceration for domestic violence, to be served concurrently, for an aggregate term of
incarceration of six to nine years. It is from the February 5, 2025 judgment of the trial
court Appellant prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT APPELLANT’S
PRIOR JUVENILE ADJUDICATION QUALIFIED AS A PRIOR
CONVICTION THAT TRIGGERED MANDATORY PRISON TIME UNDER
OHIO SENTENCING LAW, IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S RIGHTS TO
DUE PROCESS AS RECOGNIZED IN STATE V. HAND.
{¶5} Appellant argues the trial court could not use his prior juvenile adjudication
of aggravated robbery to trigger the imposition of mandatory prison time in the instant
case, based on the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Hand, 2016-Ohio-5504.
{¶6} In Hand, the trial court held the defendant’s prior juvenile adjudication for
aggravated robbery required the imposition of mandatory prison time in his later adult
case. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court. However, the Ohio Supreme Court
reversed, finding the statute allowing a juvenile adjudication to be used to mandate prison
time in a later adult case was unconstitutional:
Treating a juvenile adjudication as an adult conviction to enhance a
sentence for a later crime is inconsistent with Ohio's system for juveniles,
which is predicated on the fact that children are not as culpable for their acts
as adults and should be rehabilitated rather than punished. It is widely
recognized that juveniles are more vulnerable to outside pressures,
including the pressure to admit to an offense. Under Apprendi, using a prior
conviction to enhance a sentence does not violate the constitutional right to
due process, because the prior process involved the right to a jury trial.
Juveniles, however, are not afforded the right to a jury trial. Quite simply, a
juvenile adjudication is not a conviction of a crime and should not be treated
as one.
{¶7} State v. Hand, 2016-Ohio-5504, ¶ 38.
{¶8} The State argues the instant case is distinguishable from Hand because
Appellant’s juvenile adjudication included a SYO specification. In its brief, the State's
response merely “requests this Court carefully read that entire statute especially R.C.
2152.13(C)(1),” without setting forth the pertinent language of the statute or explaining its
applicability to this instant case. R.C. 2152.13(C)(1) provides in pertinent part:
(C)(1) A child for whom a serious youthful offender dispositional
sentence is sought by a prosecuting attorney has the right to a grand jury
determination of probable cause that the child committed the act charged
and that the child is eligible by age for a serious youthful offender
dispositional sentence. The grand jury may be impaneled by the court of
common pleas or the juvenile court.
Once a child is indicted, or charged by information or the juvenile
court determines that the child is eligible for a serious youthful offender
dispositional sentence, the child is entitled to an open and speedy trial by
jury in juvenile court and to be provided with a transcript of the proceedings.
{¶9} Therefore, unlike the defendant in Hand, Appellant did have a right to jury
trial in his juvenile case as a result of the SYO specification. However, the Supreme Court
in Hand did not rest its decision solely on the right of a juvenile to a jury trial. The court
also noted a juvenile delinquency adjudication is not a criminal conviction and should not
be treated as one, because it is predicated on the fact children are not as culpable for
their acts as adults. Hand, 2016-Ohio-5504 at ¶ 38. A case including an SYO
specification remains a juvenile court proceeding, despite the additional right to a jury trial
given to a juvenile faced with the possibility of an adult sentence at a later point:
A juvenile charged as a potential serious youthful offender does not
face bindover to an adult court; the case remains in the juvenile court. Under
R.C. 2152.11(A), a juvenile defendant who commits certain acts is eligible
for “a more restrictive disposition.” That “more restricted disposition” is a
“serious youthful offender” disposition and includes what is known as a
blended sentence—a traditional juvenile disposition coupled with the
imposition of a stayed adult sentence. R.C. 2152.13. The adult sentence
remains stayed unless the juvenile fails to successfully complete his or her
traditional juvenile disposition. R.C. 2152.13(D)(2)(a)(iii). Theoretically, the
threat of the imposition of an adult sentence encourages a juvenile's
cooperation in his own rehabilitation, functioning as both carrot and stick.
…
The statutory scheme establishes that a juvenile subject to serious-
youthful-offender status, despite the carrot/stick of the possible imposition
of an adult sentence, remains squarely in the juvenile court system. The
juvenile cannot be sent directly to an adult facility for the acts that led to his
serious-youthful-offender status. The juvenile court retains jurisdiction. The
juvenile would have to engage in separate conduct detrimental to his own
rehabilitation in the juvenile system to be committed to an adult facility. The
aims of the juvenile system—and its heightened goals of rehabilitation and
treatment—control his disposition. To get the rehabilitative benefit of the
juvenile system, the juvenile's case must remain in juvenile court.
{¶10} State v. D.H., 2009-Ohio-9, ¶ 18, 38.
{¶11} We find Appellant’s prior juvenile court adjudication could not be used to
trigger mandatory prison time in the instant case, despite the SYO specification. While
Appellant had a right to a jury trial in his juvenile adjudication, the prior proceeding
remained a juvenile court proceeding, which is focused on rehabilitation rather than
punishment, and based on the premise juveniles are less culpable for their actions. We
find the mere fact the possibility of a blended juvenile and adult sentence existed in the
prior case, leading to increased constitutional protections in the juvenile court, is
insufficient to allow the trial court to treat the juvenile adjudication the same as an adult
conviction for purposes of sentence enhancement. We therefore find Appellant’s prior
juvenile adjudication could not be used to trigger mandatory prison time in the instant
case for the reasons stated in Hand, supra.
{¶12} The assignment of error is sustained.
{¶13} The judgment of the Muskingum County Common Pleas Court is reversed.
This case is remanded to that court for resentencing.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
King, J. and
Montgomery, J. concur
