[Cite as In re N.D., 2017-Ohio-2901.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WOOD COUNTY
In re N.D. Court of Appeals No. WD-16-066
Trial Court No. 2016 JA 0662
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Decided: May 19, 2017
*****
Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, Charles S.
Bergman, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, and David T.
Harold, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Mollie B. Hojnicki-Mathieson, for appellant.
*****
SINGER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant N.D., a minor, appeals from the November 15, 2016 judgment of
the Wood County Court of Common Pleas which found him to be delinquent and
committed him to detention for 80 days. For the reasons which follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Appellant was adjudicated a delinquent child on January 19, 2016, and
placed on probation. While on probation, the state filed a violation of court order
complaint pursuant to R.C. 2152.021 alleging appellant did not pass a drug screening.
Appellant stipulated he was in violation of the court order. The juvenile court gave
appellant the opportunity to come into compliance with the order, but he had not done so
before the final hearing on November 14, 2016. The trial court ordered probation to
continue and for appellant to serve 80 days in detention.
{¶ 3} Pursuant to the guidelines set forth in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87
S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed an
appellate brief and motion to withdraw as counsel. She mailed a copy of the brief and
motion to appellant and informed him that he had a right to file his own brief, but he did
not do so.
{¶ 4} Appellant’s counsel states in her motion that she thoroughly reviewed the
record in this case and concluded that the trial court did not commit any error prejudicial
to appellant. However, in compliance with the requirements of Anders, appellant’s
counsel has submitted a brief setting forth the following potential assignment of error:
POSSIBLE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1: THE TRIAL
COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN IMPOSING DISPOSITION.
Appellant’s appointed counsel has included an argument to support this assignment of
error, but concludes that it is unsupported by the record and/or by the law. Therefore, she
concludes that an appeal would be frivolous.
2.
{¶ 5} We have reviewed the entire lower court’s proceedings and have determined
that there is no merit to the error alleged by appellant’s appointed counsel. Once a
juvenile court has adjudicated a child as a delinquent child, the court may make any order
of disposition permitted by R.C. 2152.19. But, the disposition order must satisfy the
overriding purposes of the statutory system. R.C. 2152.01(B). When the statutory
requirements have been met, the juvenile court’s disposition will not be overturned
except on grounds that the court abused its discretion. In re D.S., 111 Ohio St.3d 361,
2006-Ohio-5851, 856 N.E.2d 921, ¶ 6. R.C. 2152.19(A)(3) permits the court to place a
delinquent child in a detention facility up to 90 days. In this case, it is clear the trial court
did not abuse its discretion and the potential assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 6} Finally, this court has the obligation to fully examine the record in this case
to determine whether an appeal would be frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct.
1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. Our review of the record does not disclose any errors by the trial
court which would justify a reversal of the judgment. Therefore, we find this appeal to be
wholly frivolous. Counsel’s request to withdraw as appellate counsel is found well-taken
and is hereby granted.
{¶ 7} Having found that the trial court did not commit error prejudicial to
appellant, the judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division,
is affirmed. Pursuant to App.R. 24, appellant is hereby ordered to pay the court costs
incurred on appeal. The clerk is ordered to serve all parties with notice of this decision.
Judgment affirmed.
3.
In re N.D.
C.A. No. WD-16-066
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Arlene Singer, J.
_______________________________
James D. Jensen, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
4.
In re N.D.
Combined Opinion