[Cite as In re E.C.,
2025-Ohio-3024.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
HANCOCK COUNTY
IN RE: CASE NO. 5-24-36
E.C.,
OPINION AND
ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT JUDGMENT ENTRY
CHILD.
Appeal from Hancock County Common Pleas Court
Juvenile Division
Trial Court No. 2024 JD 0083
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: August 25, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Howard A. Elliott for Appellant
Justin Kahle for Appellee
Case No. 5-24-36
MILLER, J.
{¶1} Adjudicated delinquent child-appellant, E.C., appeals the August 28,
2024 judgment entry of disposition of the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas,
Juvenile Division. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} This cases arises from a May 11, 2023 incident in which E.C., then 13-
years-old, was walking near a railroad track in Allen County, Ohio, with a concealed
weapon. E.C. entered into an argument with some other individuals which resulted
in E.C. producing the gun and shooting more than 12 shots toward the other
individuals. One of the shots struck K.P., an uninvolved bystander, in her lower
back, causing her serious injury.
{¶3} On August 21, 2023, a complaint was filed in the Allen County
Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division, charging E.C. with four counts: Count
One of discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises in violation of R.C.
2923.162(A)(3), (C)(4), a first-degree felony if committed by an adult; Count Two
of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), (D)(1)(a), a second-degree
felony if committed by an adult; Count Three of tampering with evidence in
violation of R.C. 2921.12(A)(1), (B), a third-degree felony if committed by an adult;
and Count Four of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2),
(F)(1), a fourth-degree if committed by an adult. Counts One and Two included
-2-
Case No. 5-24-36
firearm specifications pursuant to R.C. 2941.145(A). On August 23, 2023, E.C.
entered a denial to the allegations in the complaint.
{¶4} The parties appeared for a change-of-plea hearing on March 13, 2024,
and pursuant to a negotiated-plea agreement, E.C. withdrew his denial of Counts
Two, Four, and the firearm specification associated with Count Two, and entered
an admission to those counts and the specification. The trial court accepted E.C.’s
admission and found him to be a delinquent child. At the motion of the State, the
trial court dismissed Counts One, Three, and the firearm specification associated
with Count One.
{¶5} The matter was transferred to the Hancock County Court of Common
Pleas, Juvenile Division, for disposition. On August 28, 2024, the parties appeared
for disposition. With respect to Count Two, the trial court committed E.C. to the
Ohio Department of Youth Services for institutionalization for a minimum period
of 12 months and a maximum period not to exceed E.C.’s attainment of the age of
21. The trial court also committed E.C. to a mandatory term of 3 years in the Ohio
Department of Youth Services for the firearm specification associated with Count
Two to be served consecutively to the sentence on Count Two. With respect to
Count Four, the trial court committed E.C. to the Ohio Department of Youth Service
for institutionalization for a minimum period of 6 months and a maximum period
not to exceed E.C.’s attainment of the age of 21. The trial court ordered the term of
commitment with respect to Count Four to be served consecutively to that of all
-3-
Case No. 5-24-36
other counts for a minimum term of 4 years and 6 months to a maximum term not
to exceed E.C.’s attainment of the age of 21.
{¶6} On August 30, 2024, E.C. filed his notice of appeal. He raises one
assignment of error for our review.
Assignment of Error
The trial court erred in accepting the admission of the delinquent
child to the sentence herein [sic] when it failed to substantially
comply with the dictator [sic] of Juvenile Rule 29(D) requiring the
adjudication for the delinquent child to be set aside and remanded
to Trial Court for further proceedings.
{¶7} In his assignment of error, E.C. contends that the trial court erred by
accepting his admission to the charges because the trial court did not substantially
comply with Juv.R. 29(D). Specifically, E.C. argues that the trial court failed to
properly advise him of his right to remain silent and the right against self-
incrimination. For the reasons that follow, we disagree.
Standard of Review and Relevant Law
{¶8} Juv.R. 29(D) provides, in relevant part:
The court may refuse to accept an admission and shall not accept an
admission without addressing the party personally and determining
both of the following:
(1) The party is making the admission voluntarily with understanding
of the nature of the allegations and the consequences of the admission;
(2) The party understands that by entering an admission the party is
waiving the right to challenge the witnesses and evidence against the
party, to remain silent, and to introduce evidence at the adjudicatory
hearing.
-4-
Case No. 5-24-36
“As many Ohio courts of appeals recognize, ‘An admission in a juvenile proceeding,
pursuant to Juv.R. 29, is analogous to a guilty plea made by an adult pursuant to
Crim.R. 11 in that both require that a trial court personally address the defendant on
the record with respect to the issues set forth in the rules.’” In re C.S., 2007-Ohio-
4919, ¶ 112, quoting In re Smith, 2006-Ohio-2788, ¶ 13 (3d Dist.). “Both Crim.R.
11 and Juv.R. 29 require the respective courts to make careful inquiries in order to
insure that the admission or guilty plea is entered voluntarily, intelligently, and
knowingly.” In re Smith at ¶ 13, citing In re Flynn,
101 Ohio App.3d 778, 781 (8th
Dist. 1995). “The juvenile court has an affirmative duty under Juv.R. 29(D) to
‘determine that the [juvenile], and not merely the attorney, understands the nature
of the allegations and the consequences of entering the admission.’” In re T.N.,
2013-Ohio-135, ¶ 11 (3d Dist.), quoting In re Beechler,
115 Ohio App.3d 567, 571
(4th Dist. 1996).
{¶9} Although the “preferred practice” in a juvenile delinquency case “is
strict compliance with Juv.R. 29(D),” “if the trial court substantially complies with
Juv.R. 29(D) in accepting an admission by a juvenile, the plea will be deemed
voluntary absent a showing of prejudice by the juvenile or a showing that the totality
of the circumstances does not support a finding of a valid waiver.” In re C.S. at ¶
113. “For purposes of juvenile delinquency proceedings, substantial compliance
means that in the totality of the circumstances, the juvenile subjectively understood
-5-
Case No. 5-24-36
the implications of his plea.” Id. “Therefore, the best method for complying with
Juv.R. 29(D) is for a juvenile court to tailor the language of the rule to ‘the child’s
level of understanding, stopping after each right and asking whether the child
understands the right and knows he is waiving it by entering an admission.’” In re
D.P.,
2017-Ohio-606, ¶ 15 (3d Dist.), quoting In re Smith at ¶ 14, quoting In re
Miller,
119 Ohio App.3d 52, 58 (2d Dist. 1997). A trial court’s failure to
substantially comply with Juv.R. 29(D) when accepting a juvenile admission “has a
prejudicial effect necessitating a reversal of the adjudication so that the juvenile may
plead anew.” In re T.N. at ¶ 12, citing In re
Smith at ¶ 14, citing In re Doyle,
122
Ohio App.3d 767, 772 (2d Dist. 1997) and citing In re Hendrickson,
114 Ohio
App.3d 290 (2d Dist. 1996) and In re Christopher R.,
101 Ohio App.3d 245, 248
(6th Dist. 1995).
{¶10} We review de novo whether a trial court substantially complied with
Juv.R. 29(D) in accepting a juvenile’s admission. In re T.N. at ¶ 15. See In re E.S.,
2011-Ohio-586, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.).
Analysis
{¶11} E.C. alleges that the trial court did not properly explain the charges.
He further contends that the court did not adequately inform him of the
consequences of the admission, specifically his waiver of his right to a trial, the right
to remain silent, and the right against self-incrimination. After reviewing the record,
we disagree.
-6-
Case No. 5-24-36
{¶12} With respect to the nature of the charges, the trial court engaged in the
following conversation with E.C.:
[Trial court]: What is your understanding, [E.C.], of the charge
of Felonious Assault? What does that mean, or
what did you do? You have to explain to me
what you did or what happened.
[E.C.]: I mean, that, like, a Felonious Assault’s [sic]
when you shoot somebody-, . . .
[Trial court]: Say it again, I’m sorry.
[E.C.]: I said a Felonious Assault mean, like, when you
shoot somebody, break somethin’, or somebody,
you can get a Felonious Assault from that.
[Trial court]: Okay. And, what did you do?
[E.C.]: I really ain’t play no part in it, but I just wanna
get my time over.
[Trial court]: Okay. What we’re going to do now is we’re
going to take a short recess. I’m going to give
you the opportunity to talk with [your attorney].
‘Cause what I don’t want you to do is plead to
something if you didn’t do anything. But, . . . if
you did do something, and you want to admit to
what you did, that’s fine. But, we’ll take a short
recess so that you can talk with [your attorney].
Okay?
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
[Trial court]: All right.
[Recessed.]
[Reconvened.]
-7-
Case No. 5-24-36
[Trial counsel]: We’re ready, Your Honor.
[Trial court]: Okay. Court’s now back in session, on the
record, in regards to Case Number 2023 JG
38832. [E.C.], I gave you the opportunity to
speak with [your counsel] in regards to . . . my
question of what Felonious Assault meant, and
what you did in regards to the charge of
Felonious Assault. You’ve had that opportunity
to speak with [your counsel]. Is that correct?
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
[Trial court]: Uh, I’m going to ask the question again, then,
what is it that you did in regards to the charge of
Felonious Assault?
[E.C.]: They shot-, they shot a firearm due to altercation
that-, that was going on, and I really didn’t have
nothin’ to do with it, the day before, you feel me,
then, like, the day after that, we was walkin’ to
my granny’s house, then-, . . .
[Trial court]: To your what? I’m sorry.
[E.C.]: My granny’s house.
[Trial court]: Your granny’s house. Okay.
[E.C.]: Yeah. Then, we seen them and they said they
was gonna go apologize. I’m, like, all right, you
feel me. Then they got to arguing with it, then
one (1) of ‘em, . . . I don’t remember [his name].
..
[Trial court]: Okay.
[E.C.]: …but, they got to shootin’-, they got to shootin’,
then other people . . . on my end got to shootin’,
too, then I got to shootin’, then after that, we fled
the scene.
-8-
Case No. 5-24-36
[Trial court]: Okay. You admit that you did fire a shot or shots
during that incident or that altercation. Is that
correct?
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
[Trial court]: Okay. And, that, during the course of the
altercation or that incident . . . as a result of you
firing a shot or shots, you did . . . knowingly
cause or attempt to cause harm to [K.P.] as a
result of firing those shots with the use of a
firearm. Is that correct?
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
[Trial court]: Okay. And, that, um, you had on your person,
and either used or displayed or brandished or
indicated that you possessed a firearm during
that incident or that altercation. Is that correct?
[E.C.]: No, sir, I didn’t have one (1) on me, like-, . . .
[Trial counsel]: [H]ow did you shoot if you didn’t have-, . . .
[E.C.]: It was handed.
[Trial counsel]: Okay, but, still you were-, . . .
[Trial court]: You had it in your hand, then, at that point?
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
[Trial court]: Okay. That’s what I mean when you had it on
your person.
[E.C.]: All right.
[Trial court]: You had it in your control. Is that fair to say?
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
-9-
Case No. 5-24-36
[Trial court]: Okay. And, when we’re talking about what-,
what was it that you had in your-, in your
control?
[E.C.]: A gun.
[Trial court]: Okay. It was a-, it was a handgun?
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
[Trial court]: A firearm. Correct?
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
[Trial court]: Okay. And, you had that during the incident.
Correct?
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
[Trial court]: And, you used that firearm and, as a result of you
using that firearm, you caused harm, uh, to
[K.P.]. Is that correct?
[E.C.]: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
[Trial court]: Okay. I’m not making that up, th-, that’s what
happened. Is that fair to say?
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
[Trial court]: Okay. Very good.
[E.C.]: I understand.
[Trial court]: Okay. And, in regards to Carrying a Concealed
Weapon, then, what-, what does that mean, or
what did you do, or what did you have?
-10-
Case No. 5-24-36
[E.C.]: Like, what-, like, carrying a concealed weapon,
that’s, like, when you got a gun on your body and
you get caught with it.
[Trial court]: Okay.
[E.C.]: They’re gonna hit you with carrying a concealed
weapon or CCW. I mean, that is what it is.
[Trial court]: Okay. And, you admit to that charge, as well?
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
[Trial court]: You had that on your person at some point, or it
was concealed, ready at hand, with-, with
ammunition. Is that correct?
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
(Mar. 13, 2024 Tr. at 34-39).
{¶13} The record thus reveals that E.C. engaged in a lengthy analysis with
the trial court regarding the nature of the offenses and E.C. was able to articulate his
understanding of how his own actions related to the elements of the offenses.
Furthermore, E.C. was given an opportunity to discuss the elements of the offenses
with his trial counsel, and the record indicates that he did so. Accordingly, we find
E.C.’s argument that he was not sufficiently informed of the nature of the charges
to be unsupported by the record.
{¶14} Next, E.C. alleges that he was not informed that if he admitted to the
charges, he would waive the rights associated with trial, specifically, the right to
remain silent and the right against self-incrimination. The record indicates that the
-11-
Case No. 5-24-36
trial court engaged in the following dialogue with E.C. with respect to the trial rights
he would waive with an admission:
[Trial court]: [Y]ou have the right to remain silent. What that
means is that no one can force you or compel you
to testify, or say anything against yourself, and
your silence cannot be used against you. Further,
any statement that you do make can be used
against you in Court. Do you understand that
right?
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
[Trial court]: And, third, you have the right to have a Trial in
this matter. At the trial, the State of Ohio would
have to prove by proof beyond a reasonable
doubt all of the elements contained within the
Complaint that would constitute those charges
now of Felonious Assault with an attached
Firearm Specification, as well as to the charge of
Carrying a Concealed Weapon. You would be
given the opportunity to cross-examine or ask
questions of any witnesses against you, as well
as be able to contest or review or deny any
evidence that may be presented. Further, you’d
be allowed to present your own defense, call
your own witnesses, present your own evidence.
You could take the stand and testify if you
wanted to, you would not be forced to do so.
And, further, you could use the Court’s power of
subpoena to bring forward any witnesses that
would not come forward voluntarily. Do you
have a question?
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
[Trial court]: Yeah?
[E.C.]: What do you mean by testifying, like?
-12-
Case No. 5-24-36
[Trial court]: Like, you have the ability, yourself, if you want
to, to take the witness stand and talk or testify.
Testify-, . . .
[E.C.]: And, say that I-, . . .
[Trial court]: . . . testify, it means you’re just, like, talking in
Court under oath.
[E.C.]: And, say what I seen and what I witnessed?
[Trial court]: You have that ability, yes.
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
[Trial court]: Okay? You don’t have to, I mean-, . . .
[E.C.]: I know.
[Trial court]: . . . I can’t force you to, [your attorney] can’t
force you to, [The State] can’t force you to
testify. You . . . have that ability, or you have
that . . . option. Does that make sense?
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
[Trial court]: Okay. Um, do you understand, first, what a Trial
is?
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
[Trial court]: And, do you understand you have the right to
have a Trial?
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
[Trial court]: By entering a plea of admission, then, you are, in
fact, waiving or giving up your right to have any
Trial in this matter. Is that correct?
-13-
Case No. 5-24-36
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
[Trial court]: And, you are also waiving or giving up your right
to remain silent. Is that correct?
[E.C.]: Yes, sir.
(Mar. 13, 2024 Tr. at 29-31).
{¶15} Accordingly, we find that the record belies E.C.’s claims. The trial
court both explained the concept of a trial to E.C. and confirmed that he had an
understanding of a trial and the specific rights that he would waive by entering an
admission, including both the right to remain silent and the right against self-
incrimination.
{¶16} Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the
juvenile court substantially complied with the requirements of Juv.R. 29(D).
Consequently, E.C.’s admissions were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
{¶17} E.C.’s assignment of error is overruled.
{¶18} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Hancock County
Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division.
Judgment Affirmed
ZIMMERMAN and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.
-14-
Case No. 5-24-36
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignment of error is
overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby
rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the
judgment for costs.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s
judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.
27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the
proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.
Mark C. Miller, Judge
William R. Zimmerman, Judge
John R. Willamowski, Judge
DATED:
/jlm
-15-
