[Cite as In re D.B., 2013-Ohio-496.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 98698 

IN RE: D.B. 

A Minor Child

JUDGMENT: 

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Civil Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Juvenile Division 

Case No. DL 11120458 

BEFORE: E.A. Gallagher, J., Keough, P.J., and McCormack, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 14, 2013 

 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Timothy Young 

Ohio Public Defender 

BY: Sheryl A. Trzaska 

Assistant State Public Defender 

250 East Broad Street 

Suite 1400 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE, C.S.E.A.

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Daniel T. Van 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

The Justice Center, 8th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} Juvenile appellant D.B. appeals the juvenile court’s order classifying D.B. 

as a Tier I juvenile sex offender registrant. Appellant asserts that the trial court acted in 

violation of R.C. 2152.83 when it classified him at the time of his juvenile disposition 

rather than at the time he was released from his commitment to a secure facility. 

Appellant further argues that the juvenile sex offender requirements under R.C. 2152.83 

are an unconstitutional punishment in contravention of juvenile court jurisdiction, that 

the trial court imposed an incorrect registration period and that his attorney rendered 

ineffective assistance of counsel. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of 

the juvenile court. 

{¶2} D.B. admitted to being delinquent as to the charge of importuning in 

violation of R.C. 2907.07(A), a felony of the third degree if committed by an adult. 

D.B. was fifteen years old at the time of the offense. During disposition, the trial court 

committed D.B. to the ODYS for a minimum period of six months and a maximum 

period until D.B.’s 21st birthday. The trial court also classified D.B. as a Tier I sex 

offender. D.B.’s attorney did not object to the classification designation. 

{¶3} In his first assignment of error, D.B. argues that the trial court erred in 

classifying him as a Tier I sex offender at the time of disposition rather than waiting and 

considering classification at the time of D.B.’s release from ODYS. 

{¶4} R.C. 2152.83 governs the classification of a child as a juvenile sex 
offender registrant and provides in relevant part: 

(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 officer. If the judge conducts the hearing, upon 

completion of the hearing, the judge, in the judge’s discretion and after 

consideration of the factors listed in division (E) of this section, shall do 

either of the following: 

(a) Decline to issue an order that classifies the child a juvenile offender 

registrant and specifies that the child has a duty to comply with Sections 

2950.04, 2950.041, 2950.05, and 2950.06 of the Revised Code; 

(b) Issue an order that classifies the child a juvenile offender registrant and 

specifies that the child has a duty to comply with Sections 2950.04, 

2950.041, 2950.05, and 2950.06 of the Revised Code and that states the 

determination that the judge makes at the hearing held pursuant to section 

2152.831of the Revised Code as to whether the child is a tier I sex 

offender/child-victim offender, a tier II sex offender/child-victim offender, 
or a tier III sex offender/child-victim offender. 

{¶5} In construing the language of R.C. 2152.83(B)(1), this court has held that, 

“the General Assembly intended the trial court to wait until the delinquent is released 

from a secured facility before holding the [classification] hearing.” In Re: C.L.M., 8th 

Dist. No. 97980, 2012-Ohio-5175, ¶ 9. In that case, we interpreted R.C. 2152.83 as 

follows: 

If a juvenile is adjudged delinquent for a sexually oriented offense or a 

child-victim oriented offense; the delinquent was fourteen or fifteen years 

of age at the time of committing the offense; and the trial court is not 

otherwise required by statute to classify the delinquent as a sex offender, 

then the trial court has discretion as to whether to make a further finding 

that the delinquent is a sex offender. But once the trial court decides it 

wants to make such a finding, it must first hold a hearing and consider all 

relevant statutory factors before making the determination. If the 

delinquent has been sent to a secured facility for his offense, the trial court 

must wait until the delinquent’s release before holding the hearing, and 

must consider the “effectiveness of the disposition”and “the treatment 

provided for the child placed in a secure setting.” After the hearing, the 

trial court must decide whether or not to issue an order classifying the child 

a juvenile offender registrant. 

Id. at ¶ 11, citing R.C. 2152.83(B)(1), (B)(2) and (D)(6). 

{¶6} There is no dispute that the provisions of R.C. 2152.83(B)(1) apply to D.B. 

 We conclude that the trial court erred in making the sex-offender classification at the 

dispositional hearing and that the hearing must be held upon D.B.’s release from ODYS.1

 1

We further note that the trial court, in classifying D.B. as a Tier I sex 

offender, incorrectly ordered him to comply with the registration requirements for a 

period of 15 years. R.C. 2950.07(B)(3) provides a 10-year registration period for a 

delinquent child who is classified as a Tier I sex offender/child-victim offender 

registrant. 
 

{¶7} Appellant’s first assignment of error is sustained. We reverse the trial 

court’s final judgment only insofar as it classifies D.B. as a Tier I sex offender. In light 

of our resolution of appellant’s first assignment of error, we find appellant’s remaining 

assignments of error to be moot. 

{¶8} Judgment reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion. 

It is ordered that appellant recover of said appellee costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the 

lower court to carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to 

Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and 

TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR