Court Opinion

ID: 9895353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-06 20:08:50.699564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:12.004920
License: Public Domain

[Cite as In re D.L., 2023-Ohio-4029.]

                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                  LAKE COUNTY

IN THE MATTER OF:                               CASE NOS. 2022-L-107
                                                          2022-L-108
D.L., DELINQUENT CHILD
                                                Criminal Appeals from the
                                                Court of Common Pleas,
                                                Juvenile Division

                                                Trial Court Nos. 2022 DL 01022
                                                                 2022 DL 01020

                                          OPINION

                                    Decided: November 6, 2023
                                 Judgment: Vacated and remanded

Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, and Teri R. Daniel, Assistant Prosecutor,
Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490, Painesville, OH
44077 (For Appellee, State of Ohio).

Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Lauren Hammersmith, Assistant Ohio Public
Defender, 250 East Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus, OH 43215 (For Appellant,
D.L.).

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, D.L., appeals the judgments of the Lake County Juvenile Court

issuing dispositional orders in two separate cases. We vacate the judgments and remand

the matters to the trial court with instructions to return the cases to the Cuyahoga County

Juvenile Court with a copy of this opinion.

        {¶2}     In 2022, three delinquency complaints were filed against D.L., a resident of

Lake County, in three cases in the Juvenile Division of the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas, based upon incidents alleged to have occurred in Cuyahoga County.

These appeals pertain to two of these cases.

        {¶3}    In Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court case number DL2210037, a complaint

was filed in early 2022 alleging D.L. to be a delinquent child within the meaning of R.C.

2152.02(E) based upon allegations that he committed burglary and obstructed official

business. After originally denying the allegations of the complaint, D.L. admitted the

allegations of an amended count of burglary, in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), classified

as a third-degree felony, and admitted the count alleging obstruction of official business,

in violation of R.C. 2921.31(A), classified as a second-degree misdemeanor. The court

accepted the admissions and adjudicated D.L. delinquent on these counts. Thereafter,

the court issued an entry ordering the matter be transferred to the Lake County Juvenile

Court (“the trial court”) “for further proceedings pursuant to Juvenile Rule 11.”1

        {¶4}    In Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court case number DL22103549, a complaint

was filed alleging D.L. to be a delinquent child within the meaning of R.C. 2152.02(E) for

committing several offenses, including offenses that would constitute felonies if

committed by an adult. These allegations stemmed from an incident whereby D.L. and

three others (two juveniles and one adult) stole a vehicle from a woman at gunpoint. D.L.

initially denied the allegations contained in the complaint. However, in September 2022,

the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court issued an entry indicating that the parties had

reached a resolution whereby D.L. would admit to allegations of an amended complaint

alleging one count of aggravated assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.12(A)(2), classified as

1. The third complaint pertained to allegations that D.L. committed a misdemeanor assault. Although this
case was heard with the other two cases, we have limited information regarding the assault case, as the
disposition in that case was not appealed.
                                                   2

Case Nos. 2022-L-107 and 2022-L-108
a fourth-degree felony, together with an attendant firearm specification pursuant to R.C.

2941.145(A), and grand theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), classified as a felony of

the fourth degree. The court accepted D.L.’s admissions and adjudicated him delinquent.

The court found the total restitution owed to the victim was $3,000.00 and ordered D.L.

to pay “the maximum amount of $1,000 plus a five percent processing fee to the victim[.]”

The entry then found D.L. to be a resident of Lake County, Ohio, and ordered that the

matter be transferred to the trial court “for further proceedings pursuant to Juvenile Rule

11.”2

        {¶5}    Thereafter, the trial court accepted transfer of the cases, renumbering case

number DL2210037 as 2022DL01022, and DL22103549 as case number 2022DL01020.

The Lake County Juvenile Court subsequently set the cases for “disposition.”

        {¶6}    On October 12, 2022, the Lake County Juvenile Court held a dispositional

hearing on both cases as well as the third case that is not before us in this appeal.

        {¶7}    Thereafter, in case number 2022DL01022, the trial court committed D.L. to

the Department of Youth Services (“DYS”) for an indefinite term consisting of a minimum

period of six months and a maximum period not to exceed D.L. attaining twenty-one years

of age on the burglary count, to be served consecutively to the term of commitment

imposed in case number 2022DL01020. On the obstructing official business count, the

court ordered D.L. to serve 90 days of confinement at the juvenile detention facility,

suspended based on compliance with the rules of parole. The court ordered the detention

2. The Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court also ordered transfer of the misdemeanor assault case to the trial
court.
                                                   3

Case Nos. 2022-L-107 and 2022-L-108
commitment to be served consecutively to the commitment ordered on the burglary count.

D.L. appealed this entry in our case number 2022-L-107.3

        {¶8}    In case number 2022DL01020, the trial court committed D.L. to DYS for an

indefinite term consisting of a minimum period of one year and a maximum period not to

exceed D.L. attaining twenty-one years of age on the aggravated robbery count and to a

consecutive period of commitment of three years on the firearm specification. On the

grand theft count, the court committed D.L. to DYS for an indefinite term consisting of a

minimum period of six months and a maximum period not to exceed D.L. attaining twenty-

one years of age. The court then stated that this “commitment is merged with the

commitment ordered” in the aggravated robbery count. The court further ordered D.L. to

make restitution to the victim in the amount of $3,000.00, for which he was jointly and

severally liable with his two co-delinquents and one co-defendant. D.L. appealed this

entry in our case number 2022-L-108.

        {¶9}    This court sua sponte consolidated these appeals for all purposes.

        {¶10} In his first assigned error, D.L. maintains:

                The Lake County Juvenile Court did not have jurisdiction to
                impose a disposition upon D.L. in case no. 2022 DL0120 and
                its imposition of a disposition, a commitment to the
                Department of Youth Services, violated the Due Process and
                Double Jeopardy clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth
                Amendments to the United States Constitution, Sections 10
                and 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, R.C. 2151.271, and
                In re Sekulich (1981), 65 Ohio St.[2]d 13, 417 N.E.2d 1014.

        {¶11} R.C. 2151.271 provides, in relevant part:

                Except in a case in which the child is alleged to be a serious
                youthful offender under section 2152.13 of the Revised Code,

3. Pursuant to the transcript, on the misdemeanor assault case that is not before us, the court ordered a
suspended commitment to the Lake County Detention Facility for a period of 90 days.
                                                   4

Case Nos. 2022-L-107 and 2022-L-108
              if the child resides in a county of the state and the proceeding
              is commenced in a juvenile court of another county, that court,
              on its own motion or a motion of a party, may transfer the
              proceeding to the county of the child’s residence upon the
              filing of the complaint or after the adjudicatory, or dispositional
              hearing, for such further proceeding as required. The court of
              the child’s residence shall then proceed as if the original
              complaint had been filed in that court. Transfer may also be
              made if the residence of the child changes. The proceeding
              shall be so transferred if other proceedings involving the child
              are pending in the juvenile court of the county of the child’s
              residence.

See also Juv.R. 11. R.C. 2151.271 and Juv.R. 11 pertain to the transfer of venue and do

not address jurisdiction. In re W.W., 190 Ohio App.3d 653, 2010-Ohio-5305, 943 N.E.2d

1055, ¶ 21 (11th Dist.).

       {¶12} Thus, aside from serious youthful offender cases, a decision to transfer a

juvenile case to the juvenile court of the child’s residential county is discretionary if the

child does not have any pending juvenile proceedings in his county of residence. In re

S.M., 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 09CA5, 2009-Ohio-3118, ¶ 25. However, such a transfer is

mandatory if juvenile proceedings are pending in the child’s county of residence. Id. at ¶

22 (“Juv.R. 11(B) and the last sentence of R.C. 2151.271 make a change of venue

mandatory if other proceedings are pending in the juvenile court of the county where the

child resides.”). “‘Pending is defined as “[b]egun, but not yet completed; during; before

the conclusion of; prior to the completion of; * * *[.] Thus an action or suit is ‘pending’

from its inception until the rendition of final judgment.”’” Id. at 24, quoting In re Don B.,

6th Dist. Huron No. H-02-033, 2003-Ohio-1400, fn.1, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1021

(5th Ed.1979).

       {¶13} Here, there is no indication that any proceedings involving D.L. were

pending in the Lake County Juvenile Court when the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court
                                              5

Case Nos. 2022-L-107 and 2022-L-108
ordered transfer of the cases. Prior to issuing the orders transferring the cases, the

Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court addressed the issue of transfer at a hearing, finding

D.L. to be a resident of Lake County and stating that “all three of these matters * * * will

be transferred into Lake County for disposition.” The court notified D.L. that “the person

who will be handling the disposition in your case will be a Judge or a Magistrate in Lake

County.” Thus, the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court’s reason for transfer appears to be

based to some extent on the three cases being disposed of together in D.L.’s residential

county.

       {¶14} Although R.C. 2151.271 and Juv.R. 11 generally give discretion to a juvenile

court to transfer venue to the child’s county of residence, “[R.C. 2151.271] does not

encompass a transfer of the cause after a dispositional order has been made[.].” In re

Sekulich, 65 Ohio St.2d 13, 15, 417 N.E.2d 1014 (1981). Where a dispositional order is

entered, a juvenile court exceeds its authority by also transferring the matter to another

juvenile court for disposition. Id.

       {¶15} Here, D.L. has limited his first assigned error to Lake County Juvenile Court

case number 2022DL01020 (the aggravated robbery case). As set forth above, the

Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court transferred this matter to Lake County, where D.L.

resides, after it ordered D.L. to pay restitution of $1,000.00. The order of restitution is a

dispositional order pursuant to R.C. 2152.19 and 2152.20. Accordingly, D.L. contends

that the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court exceeded its authority in transferring this case

to the Lake County Juvenile Court. The state concedes error, and we agree. Therefore,

D.L.’s first assigned error has merit.

                                             6

Case Nos. 2022-L-107 and 2022-L-108
      {¶16} Although D.L. limited his first assigned error to the aggravated robbery case,

at oral argument, the parties agreed that dispositions in both the aggravated robbery case

and the burglary case (Lake County case no. 2022DL01022) should be vacated, and

these matters remanded to the trial court to be returned to the Cuyahoga County Juvenile

Court for further proceedings.    Although we are not bound by the parties’ agreed

resolution of the appeals, we conclude that the previously unraised issue is now properly

before us by agreement of the parties.

      {¶17} Unlike the aggravated robbery case, the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court

did not issue a dispositional order in the burglary case. Thus, it was within the Cuyahoga

County Juvenile Court’s discretion to transfer the burglary case to Lake County Juvenile

Court pursuant to R.C. 2151.271 and Juv.R. 11. As discussed above, it appears that the

Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court intended these cases be transferred for disposition

together. However, for the reasons addressed above, Lake County Juvenile Court was

precluded from issuing a dispositional order in the aggravated robbery case. Moreover,

the Lake County Juvenile Court’s disposition of the misdemeanor assault case is

undisturbed, as it was not appealed. Accordingly, based on the unique circumstances of

this case, we conclude that the disposition of the burglary case should be vacated and

the case returned to the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court for further proceedings

because the intended simultaneous disposition of all three cases, on which the Cuyahoga

County Juvenile Court appeared to rely in exercising its discretion, cannot be achieved.

      {¶18} In his second assigned error, D.L. contends:

             The Court abused its discretion by failing to consider the
             overriding purposes of juvenile dispositions when it imposed
             a minimum four and a half year cumulative commitment to
             DYS as a disposition.
                                            7

Case Nos. 2022-L-107 and 2022-L-108
      {¶19} Our resolutions of the first assigned error and of the issue raised by the

parties at oral argument renders the second assigned error moot.

      {¶20} The judgments are vacated, and these matters are remanded to the trial

court with instructions to return the two cases at issue herein, along with a copy of this

order, to the Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court for further proceedings.

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.

                                            8

Case Nos. 2022-L-107 and 2022-L-108