[Cite as In re D.Y. , 2020-Ohio-3758.]



## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MONROE COUNTY

IN THE MATTER OF:

D.Y.,

DELINQUENT CHILD.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 19 MO 0021

Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division of Monroe County, Ohio Case No. 5729

BEFORE: Carol Ann Robb, Cher y l L. Waite, David A. D’Apolito, Jud g es.

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

.

Atty. Rhonda Santha , 6401 State Route 534, West Farmington, Ohio 44491 for Appellant and
Atty. James Peters , Prosecutor, Atty. Jamie Riley Pointer , Assistant Prosecutor, 101 North Main Street, Room 15, Woodsfield, Ohio 43793, for Appelle e.– 2 –

Case No. 19 MO 0021 Dated: Jul y 10, 2020

Robb, J.
{¶1} Juvenile-Appellant D.Y. appeals from the delinquency adjudicati on and disposition entered in the Monroe County Common Pleas Court, Ju venile Division. Appellant raises two suppression issues, arguing the juvenile c ourt should have suppressed his confession because it was coerced by a threat of incarceration and his
Miranda rights were not voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly waiv ed. These arguments are without merit. In any event, these suppression issues were not preserved for purposes of appeal due to Appellant’s entry of an admission to the burglary allegation in the complaint. An admission by a juvenile waives alleged error s in denying a motion to suppress in the same manner that a guilty plea by an adult defe ndant waives suppression issues. For all of the following reasons, the juvenile court’s judgment is affirmed.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE {¶2} In July 2019, a probation officer and a detective learned that a cabin outside of Woodsfield, Ohio had been entered without the owner’s permis sion and item s had been damaged. They spoke to two teenagers who were present and one who was in the vicinity and then made contact with Appellant for an interview. Appella nt was 13.5 years old. They went to his residence, but neither he nor his father was h ome. The officers found Appellant walking home after swimming with friends. As they di d not wish to interview him in the presence of others and he was defiant about accompan ying them to be interviewed, they handcuffed him and transported him to the cou nty sheriff’s office. {¶3} The interview was videotaped. The detective read a juvenile Miranda rights form to Appellant. The probation officer asked if he understoo d what was read to him, and Appellant said, “Yes, sir.” The probation officer asked if there was anything he did not understand, and Appellant said, “No, sir.” The probation o fficer also inquired whether he had any questions about what he heard, and Appellant replied , “No, sir.” Appellant signed the form and then gave a statement about his involvement

. {¶4} A juvenile delinquency complaint was filed against Appellant fo r burglary (a third-degree felony) and criminal damaging (a misdemeanor). Ap pellant’s counsel filed a motion to suppress his confession, stating Appellant was not fu lly aware of his rights or– 3 –

Case No. 19 MO 0021 the consequences of waiving them. In orally supplementing the motion, counsel reviewed the totality of the circumstances, including the fact that the detective preceded the
Miranda warning by saying, “your truthfulness will determine whether y ou sleep at home tonight or somewhere else.” (Tr. 4). Counsel concluded that t he Miranda waiver was not knowing or voluntary. (Tr. 5). {¶5} At the suppression hearing, the state presented the testimony o f the detective and the probation officer. The video of the interview was admitted as an exhibit for the juvenile court’s viewing. In addition to testifying ab out the conversations evidenced in the video, the detective testified: the drive to the police station took three to five minutes; he removed the handcuffs when they arrived; he saw the probation officer attempt to call Appellant’s father multiple times; Appellant wa s permitted to use the restroom; Appellant had no shirt on because he had been walking back from the pool; and the interview room was approximately seventy degrees with a ir conditioning in July. (Tr. 13-18). {¶6} The probation officer testified about his frequent contact with Appellant as Appellant was on probation at the time (through this juvenile c ourt). (Tr. 33-34). He disclosed that Appellant had four prior local cases with charge s initiated upon police reports, and he had previous charges in Indiana, including poss ession of marijuana. (Tr. 35, 45). The probation officer said the child’s father is a si ngle parent and noted it was often difficult to contact the father at work; he tried to call him three of four times that afternoon. (Tr. 37-38, 42). The probation officer said Appell ant had strong verbal skills and a better understanding than other children that he supervis es. (Tr. 54). Appellant had been in this situation before, and the probation officer sa id he had similar conversations with Appellant in the past, which contributed to his belief that Appellant
understood his Miranda rights. (Tr. 45-46, 51). He opined Appellant was more intell igent than some others realized. (Tr. 46). {¶7} Appellant presented testimony from the assistant school psychol ogist at his school. She acknowledged he had strong verbal skills and would be considered average with regards to academic abilities, IQ composite score, and mos t testing categories. (Tr. 72, 77). He tested weak in processing speed and fluid reasonin g (responding to novel situations). (Tr. 65-70). She mentioned an attention deficit and was concerned as to– 4 –

Case No. 19 MO 0021 whether Appellant could process the significance of the informa tion provided to him about the rights he was waiving. (Tr. 70-71, 73). {¶8} On August 20, 2019, the juvenile court overruled the suppressio n motion. The court reviewed the totality of the circumstances, including Appellant’s age, the lack of a parent during the interview, his strong verbal skills, his frequent contact with the probation officer, his repeated encounters with law enforcement in the past year, the probation officer’s three questions about his understanding of the waiver of rights, the lack of physical deprivation or inducement, and the low intensi ty of the interview. Upon viewing the video, the juvenile court observed that the total i nterview lasted only fourteen minutes with less than ten minutes of questioning (and addition al time spent writing). {¶9} On August 30, 2019, Appellant entered an admission to the burgl ary charge. The state dismissed the criminal damaging charge and withdrew i ts probation revocation requests in two other cases. In a September 3, 2019 order, the court imposed a suspended sentence of incarceration with an order to complete a program at a residential facility and to comply with probation and counseling. The with in appeal followed.
ADMISSION FAILS TO PRESERVE SUPPRESSION ISSUES {¶10} Appellant raises only suppressions issues on appeal, setting fo rth arguments as to why the court should have suppressed his confes sion. However, Appellant entered an admission, thereby admitting the allegatio ns in the complaint instead of taking the case to trial. See Juv.R. 29(C)-(D). Before considering Appellant’s suppression arguments, we must discuss the effect of the admiss ion on the ability to appeal suppression issues. In doing so, we first review how a guilty plea by an adult defendant waives the right to appeal the court’s denial of a su ppression motion. {¶11} The Ohio Supreme Court has often stated that when a defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered a guilty plea with the assistance of counsel, the defendant “may not thereafter raise independent cl aims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.” State
v. Obermiller , 147 Ohio St.3d 175, 2016-Ohio-1594, 63 N.E.3d 93, ¶ 55 (a cap ital case), quoting State v. Fitzpatrick , 102 Ohio St.3d 321, 2004-Ohio-3167, 810 N.E.2d 927, ¶ 78, quoting Tollett v. Henderson , 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973).
The Obermiller Court found that by pleading guilty, the defendant waived the right to raise– 5 –

Case No. 19 MO 0021 any alleged constitutional suppression issues and was thus proh ibited from raising arguments on appeal pertaining to the denial of his motion to s uppress. Obermiller , 147 Ohio St.3d 175 at ¶ 56 (noting the defendant did not challenge his guilty plea on appeal). {¶12} A guilty plea is a “break in the chain of events” that previous ly occurred in
the case. State v. Spates , 64 Ohio St.3d 269, 272, 595 N.E.2d 351 (1992). “When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise i ndependent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.”
Id. Therefore, where an a ppellant claimed the trial court erred by denying a motion to suppress involuntary and coerced statements to the police, the Supreme Court concluded his guilty plea waived the right to contest these issues on app eal. State v. Ketterer , 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 2006-Ohio-5283, 855 N.E.2d 48, ¶ 116-117. {¶13} This is distinct from the effect of a no contest plea, which “d oes not preclude a defendant from asserting upon appeal that the trial court pre judicially erred in ruling on a pretrial motion, including a pretrial motion to suppress evid ence.” Crim.R. 12(I). “A valid guilty plea by a counseled defendant, however, generally waives the right to appeal all prior nonjurisdictional defects, including the denial of a motion to suppress.” State v. Beasley , 152 Ohio St.3d 470, 2018-Ohio-16, 97 N.E.3d 474, ¶ 15. This is a wellestablished principle. {¶14} In a juvenile delinquency case, the court shall request the “pa rty against whom allegations are being made in the complaint to admit or de ny the allegations.” Juv.R. 29 (C). “A failure or refusal to admit the allegations shall be deemed a denial, except in cases where the court consents to entry of a plea of no contest .” (Emphasis added). Juv.R. 29(C). This was added to the rule in 2001 afte r the General Assembly encouraged the Supreme Court to amend Rule 29(C) to permit no c ontest pleas with the
consent of the court in order to be consistent with Crim.R. 11. See Staff Note to Juv.R. 29(C) (2001). Ther e is thus the ability to enter a no contest p lea in a juvenile case. {¶15} Juv.R. 29 also provides that when the juvenile court accepts an admission, the court must personally address the juvenile and determine th e juvenile: (1) is making the admission voluntarily with understanding of the nature of t he allegations and the consequences of the admission; and (2) understands that “by ent ering an admission the– 6 –

Case No. 19 MO 0021 party is waiving the right to challenge the witnesses and evidence against the party , to remain silent, and to introduce evidence at the adjudicatory he aring.” (Emphasis added). Juv.R. 29(D)(1). {¶16} A juvenile’s admission is analogous to an adult defendant’s gui lty plea in
many ways. See In re C.S. , 115 Ohio St.3d 267, 2007-Ohio-4919, 874 N.E.2d 1177, ¶ 112 (a Juv.R. 29 admission is analogous to a Crim.R. 11 guilty plea, in the context of requiring the trial court to personally address the defendant o n the record about the matters listed in the pertinent rule). The Twelfth District ha s therefore concluded that a juvenile’s tender of an admission waives the juvenile court’s r uling on an earlier suppression motion, just as an adult defendant’s guilty plea wa ives a prior suppression ruling. In re S.L. , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2005-05-112, 2006-Ohio-1895, ¶ 4 (ref using to address the merits of the appellate arguments on suppression wh ere the juvenile entered an admission); In re Panko , 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2001-05-008, 2002-Ohio-2306, ¶ 16- 17 (where the district first held that an admission by a juveni le waives right to challenge a ruling on a motion to suppress on appeal). {¶17} Correspondingly, the Fourth District has concluded: “As in a c riminal case when the defendant pleads guilty, a juvenile who enters a delin quency admission may not raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of con stitutional rights that
occurred before he entered the admission.” In re S.M. , 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 09CA5, 2009-Ohio-3118, ¶ 10. See also In re D.L. , 4th Dist. Washington No. 09CA26, 2009- Ohio-5294, ¶ 17-18. The Third District has likewise observed: “a defendant in an adult criminal case who enters a plea of guilty waives the right to a ppeal all non-jurisdictional issues arising at prior stages of the proceedings. * * * We hav e found no authority, nor has the appellant directed us to any, to indicate that the iden tical principle would not apply to an admission duly entered in a juvenile delinquency case.” In re E.B. , 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-16-03, 2017-Ohio-1232, ¶ 23 (while refusing to address a temporary disposition). {¶18} Finally, in explaining that “a guilty plea waives ineffective a ssistance of counsel claims for defects that occur prior to the guilty plea, ” this court has concluded that holdings such as this “equally apply to the juvenile system whe n a juvenile admits the charges.” In re C.L.P. , 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 08 MA 58, 2010-Ohio-1004, ¶ 25– 7 –

Case No. 19 MO 0021 (distinguishing the situation and finding no waiver where there was a defect after the plea was entered, such as ineffective assistance of counsel at sente ncing). {¶19} Accordingly, the suppression issues raised in this appeal were not preserved for further review; rather, they were waived by Appel lant’s entry of a plea of admission to the allegations in the complaint regarding the off ense of burglary. In any event, Appellant’s arguments are without merit.
GENERAL LAW ON CONFESSIONS {¶20} The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants th e right to be free from self-incrimination, and the Sixth Amendment grants the right to counsel. To protect these rights, the police must warn the suspect before a custodial interrogation “that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he do es make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence o f an attorney, either retained or appointed.” Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). {¶21} Where a suppression motion challenges a Miranda waiver, the state has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the suspect knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his privilege against sel f-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel before speaking to the police. State v. Barker , 149 Ohio St.3d 1, 2016-Ohio-2708, 73 N.E.3d 365, ¶ 23, citing Miranda , 384 U.S. at 475. “A court may not presume a valid waiver either from the suspect's silenc e after warnings are given or from the fact that the suspect eventually confessed.” Id. {¶22} “To determine whether a suspect knowingly, intelligently, and v oluntarily
waived his Miranda rights, courts examine the totality of the circumstances.” Barker , 149 Ohio St.3d 1 at ¶ 24. When the suspect is a juvenile, the tota lity of the circumstances includes: age, experience, ba ckground, education, and intellig ence; capacity to understand the rights and the warning; ability to understand th e consequences of waiving those rights; access to advice from a parent or guardian; and t he details of the interview, such as the length and intensity. Id. at ¶ 24, 42. Notably, the advice from or presence of a parent is one consideration but is not required. See id. at ¶ 24. {¶23} The voluntariness of a Miranda waiver is different from the voluntariness of a statement; even if a Miranda waiver was valid, a statement can be coerced. The– 8 –

Case No. 19 MO 0021 question of whether a confession was voluntary invokes the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Fifth Amendment’s right against s elf-incrimination.
Barker , 149 Ohio St.3d 1 at ¶ 20, 38. “To satisfy due process with r espect to a challenged confession, the state must prove by a preponderance of the evid ence that the confession was voluntary. * * * The due-process test for voluntariness tak es into consideration the totality of the circumstances.” Id. at ¶ 38. “The totality-of-the-circumstances test takes on even greater importance when applied to a juvenile.” Id. at ¶ 39 (rejecting application of a statute to a juvenile if it presumes the statement was vol untary merely because it was recorded). “The totality of the circumstances from which a cou rt must determine the voluntariness of a juvenile's statement includes not only the d etails of the interrogation but also the juvenile's unique characteristics.” Id. at ¶ 42. “While voluntary waiver and voluntary confession are separate issues, the same test is used to determine both, i.e., whether the action was voluntary under the totality of the circ umstances.” State v. Clark

, 38 Ohio St.3d 252, 261, 527 N.E.2d 844 (1988).
MIRANDA WAIVER {¶24} Appellant sets forth two assignments of error, both addressing the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress his statement. Appell ant’s second assignment of error, which we address first, contends: “Appellee, State of Ohio, violated Appellant Juvenile’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by failing to apprise Appellant Juvenile of those rights .” {¶25} In arguing the state failed to show he knowingly or intelligent ly waived his rights, Appellant says the detective’s reading of Miranda rights from a pre-printed form did not truly advise him of his rights or the consequences of w aiving those rights. Appellant does not believe the detective ensured he understood his rights and complains he was not directly asked if he wanted to waive his rights. In addressing the voluntariness of the waiver, Appellant raises threat or inducement in the det ective’s pre- Miranda statement that “truthfulness will determine if you stay at home tonight or somewhere else.” He also believes the detective used subterfuge after reading Ap pellant his rights by asking him what day he entered the cabin, instead of whether he entere d the cabin. {¶26} First, there is nothing improper about an officer reading from a pre-printed
Miranda rights form. In fact, this helps ensure compliance with each requirement of– 9 –

Case No. 19 MO 0021 Miranda . The detective read from what he said was a juvenile version of the form, which
contained somewhat more than a bare bones statement of the Miranda rights. Miranda requires the suspect to be advised “that he has a right to rema in silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he h as a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.” Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The detective’s adv isement to Appellant essentially said: before questions are asked of you, you must understand your rights; you have the right to remain silent; anything you say can and w ill be used against you in court; you have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions; if your parents are unable to pay for a lawyer, one will be app ointed for you prior to any questioning if you so desire; if you wish to answer our questio ns now without a lawyer present, you have that right; you can stop answering questions at any time; and you also have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to a lawyer. {¶27} Sufficient information was provided to Appellant. Contrary to Appellant’s suggestion, the detective did not mumble while reading Appellan t his rights. The detective finished reading these rights and asked, “Okay?” to w hich Appellant answered, “Yes, sir.” Regardless of whether this sufficiently ensured Ap pellant’s understanding, the probation officer interjected with additional inquiries. {¶28} After the rights were read and before questioning proceeded, th e probation officer asked Appellant, “Do you understand all that?” Appella nt replied, “Yes, sir.” The probation officer then changed the nature of the response by as king if there was “anything you don’t understand?” Appellant responded, “No, sir.” The pr obation officer also inquired as to whether Appellant had “any questions about it?” Appellant answered, “No, sir.” The detective then asked Appellant to sign the form to c onfirm that he read Appellant his rights. {¶29} Appellant emphasizes: “a valid waiver will not be presumed sim ply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained.” Miranda , 384 U.S. at 475. Appellant suggests this required the questioners to specifically ask if he wished to wa ive his rights. However, an express oral statement of waiver is not necessary. North Carolina v. Butler , 441 U.S. 369, 373, 99 S.Ct. 175, 560 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979). “The question is not one of form, but– 10 –

Case No. 19 MO 0021 rather whether the defendant in fact knowingly and voluntarily waived” his Miranda rights.
Id. The statement in Miranda (that mere silence is not enough) “does not mean that the defendant's silence, coupled with an understanding of his right s and a course of conduct indicating waiver, may never support a conclusion that a defend ant has waived his rights.”
Id. Waiver can be inferred from the actions and words of the pers on interrogated. Id. {¶30} On this topic, the Ohio Supreme Court recently addressed an arg ument that the police failed to secure a valid Miranda waiver because they did not specifically ask the suspect before the interrogation began whether he wanted to waive his rights and speak to them. In rejecting this argument, the Court explained : “a Miranda waiver need not be expressly made in order to be valid. * * * A court may i nfer a waiver from a suspect's behavior, viewed in light of the surrounding circumstances.” State v. Ford , 158 Ohio St.3d 139, 2019-Ohio-4539, 140 N.E.3d 616, ¶ 188, citing Butler , 441 U.S. at 373 {¶31} Regarding Appellant’s initial allegation of inducement, the inq uiry as to what day a suspect committed a crime is not inducement as envisioned by the case law. As for the detective’s pre- Miranda disclosure that “truthfulness will determine whether you sleep at home or somewhere else,” Appellant states that this wa s a threat of incarceration. The state points out that there is nothing coercive about advising a suspect to be honest. For instance, where an appellant argued it was coercive for off icers to “badger” him to tell the truth, the Supreme Court explained, “admonitions to tell th e truth directed at a suspect by police officers are not coercive in nature.” State v. Wiles , 59 Ohio St.3d 71, 81, 571 N.E.2d 97 (1991), citing State v. Cooey , 46 Ohio St.3d 20, 28, 544 N.E.2d 895 (1989) (and an officer’s suggestion of leniency does not invalidate a confession but is merely a factor in weighing voluntariness). {¶32} Appellant emphasizes the detective’s addition of the statement that his honesty would affect whether he would go home that night. In a Twelfth District case cited by the parties, a detective advised a fifteen-year-old du ring a custodial interrogation that he needed to be 100 percent honest when answering question s or he would go to the juvenile detention center, “probably” until he was twenty-o ne years old (in response to a question asking whether he would be able to go home that e vening). State v. A.P.

, 2018-Ohio-3423, 117 N.E.3d 840, ¶ 16 (12th Dist.). The juvenil e argued he was coerced into waiving his rights and giving a confession due to improper police conduct involving– 11 –

Case No. 19 MO 0021 “threatening” him with detention until age twenty-one. Id. at ¶ 37 (on appeal after a no contest plea). {¶33} The appellate court concluded the waiver was voluntary after fi nding the
detective’s statement “was not intended as a threat and was not misleading, as it emphasized the seriousness of appellant's conduct and the poten tial punishment associated with trafficking and possession of drugs.” Id. at ¶ 38-39 (the court also found the confession was voluntary). As to the parenthetical observa tion, the issue of whether
the detective’s statement coerced the confession is addressed i n the next assignment of error. Notably, a police officer can advise the suspect about any advantages of telling the truth and “it is not unduly coercive for a law-enforcement offi cer to mention potential punishments.” State v. Ford , 158 Ohio St.3d 139, 2019-Ohio-4539, 140 N.E.3d 616, ¶ 196, 198. {¶34} At this point, we must evaluate the detective’s statement under the totality
of the circumstances relevant to the Miranda waiver. Appellant was 13.5 years old. He
was familiar with the other individual who assisted the detecti ve in transporting and interviewing him. The probation officer (who asked the three a forequoted questions about whether he understood his rights) was Appellant’s own probation officer for the past six months. He had frequent contacts with Appellant in that time. He opined that Appellant had a better understanding of the contents of a conversation th an most juveniles with whom he dealt. Although the assistant school psychologist note d that Appellant once tested lower than average in fluid reasoning and processing, he was considered to be of average general intelligence. H e had strong verbal skills and was able to express himself in a reasonable and logical manner. He went from acting disres pectful on the street to showing respect at the police station, demonstrating he underst ood the seriousness of his situation. There was no physical deprivation. Although Ap pellant was without a shirt, he was picked up in that condition while walking home from swim ming; it was July, and the police station was approximately seventy degrees. He was n ot shivering and did not otherwise appear cold or uncomfortable. {¶35} After the Miranda warnings, Appellant immediately admitted certain aspects of his participation in the offenses. In other words, there wa s no lengthy cajoling to get him to speak; in addition, this was the only police encounter r elated to this offense. The– 12 –

Case No. 19 MO 0021 total interview was brief, lasting 14 minutes (including the ti me to provide the Miranda rights and the writing of a statement at the end). The intervi ew was not intense. Furthermore, Appellant had many past contacts with law enforcem ent for a juvenile of his age. Appellant had charges in four prior local cases and a pri or Indiana case (for possessing marijuana). Considering the totality of the circums tances, there is no indication the trial court erred in overruling Appellant’s argu ment that his waiver of
Miranda rights was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. According ly, this assignment
of error is overruled.
COERCED CONFESSION {¶36} Appellant’s other assignment of error reads: “Appellee, State of Ohio, violated Appellant Juvenile’s Fifth Amendment right not
to be forced to incriminate himself.” {¶37} To the extent the text of the assignment of error raises the vo luntariness of
the Miranda waiver, we refer to the arguments addressed supra in evaluating the totality of the circumstances on whether Appellant knowingly, intelligen tly, and voluntarily waived
his Miranda rights. In addition to arguing his waiver of Miranda rights was not voluntary due to the detective’s statement, Appellant also suggests his c onfession was coerced and not voluntary even if the Miranda waiver was valid. {¶38} As recited in the above section setting forth the general law, the
voluntariness of a Miranda waiver is a different question than the voluntariness of a statement; e.g., even if a Miranda waiver was valid, a statement can be coerced. The question of whether a confession was voluntary invokes the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the Fifth Amendment self-incr imination right. State
v. Barker , 149 Ohio St.3d 1, 2016-Ohio-2708, 73 N.E.3d 365, ¶ 20, 38. {¶39} In the A.P. case reviewed in the prior assignment of error, the detective advised a fifteen-year-old during a custodial interrogation tha t he needed to be 100 percent honest when answering questions or he would go to the j uvenile detention center, “probably” until he was twenty-one years old. In addition to f inding the detective did not coerce Appellant into waiving his rights, the Twelfth District found the detective did not coerce the confession, pointing out the detective’s statement w as not intended to be a– 13 –

Case No. 19 MO 0021 threat and was not misleading merely because it emphasized the seriousness of the conduct and the potential punishment. A.P. , 2018-Ohio-3423 at ¶ 16, 37-39. {¶40} Appellant suggests his case is similar to a United States Supre me Court case where an officer questioned a thirteen-year-old at school and said the juvenile would be placed in juvenile detention if they believed he would conti nue to break into homes. In that case, the lower courts found the confession was voluntary and Miranda was not required because he was not in custody. J.D.B. v. North Carolina , 564 U.S. 261, 268, 131 S.Ct. 2394, 180 L.Ed.2d 310 (2011). The United States Supr eme Court only addressed the question of whether a court must consider a juven ile’s age when determining whether a suspect was in custody for purposes of de termining if Miranda warnings were required. Id. (finding age is a factor and remanding for a determination of whether the juvenile was in custody at the time of the intervie w). As the issue of whether the interrogation was custodial is not present in the case at b ar, J.D.B. is not an analogous case ( except to the extent the lower courts found the officer’s mention of detention did not make the confession involuntary ). {¶41} “The totality of the circumstances from which a court must dete rmine the voluntariness of a juvenile's statement includes not only the d etails of the interrogation but also the juvenile's unique characteristics.” Barker , 149 Ohio St.3d 1 at ¶ 42. Here, there is no indication the detective lied when stating Appellan t’s truthfulness would determine whether he went home that evening. “Admonitions to t ell the truth are considered to be neither threats nor promises.” State v. Loza , 71 Ohio St.3d 61, 67, 641 N.E.2d 1082 (1994). {¶42} “Officers may discuss the advantages of telling the truth, advi se suspects that cooperation will be considered, or even suggest that a cou rt may be lenient with a
truthful defendant.” Ford , 158 Ohio St.3d 139 at ¶ 198, quoting State v. Belton , 149 Ohio St.3d 165, 2016-Ohio-1581, 74 N.E.3d 319, ¶ 111. Moreover, “it is not unduly coercive for a law-enforcement officer to mention potential punishments. ” Ford , 158 Ohio St.3d 139 at ¶ 198. We note that even in cases where an officer uses the interview tactic of lying about facts, this would not make a confession involuntaryand would merely be one factor in the totality of the circumstances analysis. State v. Ford , 158 Ohio St.3d 139, 2019-Ohio-4539, 140 N.E.3d 616, ¶ 196.– 14 –

Case No. 19 MO 0021 {¶43} “While voluntary waiver and voluntary confession are separate i ssues, the same test is used to determine both, i.e., whether the action w as voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Clark , 38 Ohio St.3d 252, 261, 527 N.E.2d 844 (1988). We therefore, incorporate by reference the analysis in the prior assignment of error regarding the totality of the circumstances. {¶44} In addition to the detective’s statement to Appellant that his truthfulness would affect whether he went home that evening, we considered: Appellant’s unique characteristics, including his age, mentality, and intelligence ; his prior criminal experience with the police and the juvenile justice system in two states; his current probation status and resulting familiarity with one of the interviewers; the lac k of parental presence; the reading of his rights; the time of day being afternoon; the bri ef length of the interview; the low intensity of the interview; the fact that this was a one-ti me encounter with the detective before the confession (as opposed to frequent, wearing interrog ations); the lack of physical deprivation or mistreatment; and the alleged threat or inducement. See Barker, 149 Ohio St.3d 1 at ¶ 40-42 (use special care in scrutinizing j uvenile’s statement to ensure it was not coerced, suggested, or the product of ignorance of r ights or of adolescent fantasy, fright or despair); In re Watson , 47 Ohio St.3d 86, 89-90, 548 N.E.2d 210 (1989) (finding juveniles, who were 12 and 14 years old, voluntarily w aived their rights and confessed, despite absence of a parent or interested adult). {¶45} In reviewing the video, Appellant did not appear impaired, into xicated, or
confused. See State v. Brewer , 48 Ohio St.3d 50, 58, 549 N.E.2d 491 (1990). Moreover, Appellant’s friends had already given statements about their pa rticipation and what they
witnessed. See State v. Acquista , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 95APA04-431 (Dec. 12, 1995) (the defendant confessed after watching the video in which his co-defendant incriminated him). There is no indication Appellant’s will was overborne orhis capacity for selfdetermination was critically impaired by coercive police tactic s or otherwise. See, e.g., Colorado v. Connelly , 479 U.S. 157, 167, 170, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986) (coercive police activity necessary prerequisite); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218, 225, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). Upon reviewing the totality of the circumstances, this courts finds the state showed the confessio n was voluntary and was not coerced by the detective’s statement. This assignment of e rror is overruled.– 15 –

Case No. 19 MO 0021 {¶46} For the various reasons herein set forth, the trial court’s jud gment is
affirmed.

Waite, P.J., concurs.
D’Apolito, J., concurs.[Cite as In re D.Y. , 2020-Ohio-3758.]

For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assi gnments of error are overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Co urt that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division of Monroe County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Costs waived. A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall const itute the mandate in this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Proc edure. It is ordered that a certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to car ry this judgment into
execution.

NOTICE TO COUNSEL
This document constitutes a final judgment entry.