[Cite as In re J.R., 2019-Ohio-2594.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
CLARK COUNTY
:
:
IN RE: J.R. : Appellate Case Nos. 2018-CA-125
: 2018-CA-126
: 2018-CA-127
: 2018-CA-128
:
: Trial Court Case Nos. 2017-1229
: 2018-0734
: 2018-0753
2018-0827
(Appeal from Common Pleas Court-
Juvenile Division)
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 28th day of June, 2019.
...........
JOHN M. LINTZ, Atty. Reg. No. 0097715, Clark County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate
Division, 50 East Columbia Street, Suite 449, Springfield, Ohio 45502
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
TIMOTHY B. HACKETT, Atty. Reg. No. 0093480, Office of the Ohio Public Defender, 200
East Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus, Ohio 43215
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
-2-
HALL, J.
{¶ 1} J.R., a minor, appeals from the trial court’s dispositional orders in four
consolidated cases committing him to the Department of Youth Services (DYS).
{¶ 2} The record reflects that J.R. entered admissions in six different cases. Two
of them involved conduct that constituted felony theft if committed by an adult. One
involved conduct that constituted felony abduction. One involved misdemeanor assault.
Another involved misdemeanor criminal damaging and aggravated menacing. The final
case involved a supervised-release violation. (Adjudication hearing Tr. at 5-12). J.R. has
appealed in the three cases involving conduct that constituted felonies if committed by an
adult (App. Nos. 2018-CA-126, 2018-CA-127, and 2018-CA-128). He also has appealed
in the supervised-release violation case (App. No. 2018-CA-125). In each of the three
cases involving felony conduct, the trial court ordered J.R. committed to DYS for a
minimum term of six months. The trial court ordered these six-month terms to be served
consecutively. In the supervised-release violation case, the trial court imposed a 90-day
commitment to DYS. It made this commitment consecutive to the others. (Disposition
hearing Tr. at 6-7).
{¶ 3} J.R. advances two assignments of error on appeal. First, he contends the
trial court acted without statutory authority when it imposed a consecutive commitment
for a supervised-release violation. Second, he alleges ineffective assistance of counsel
based on his attorney’s failure to object to this unauthorized sentence. For its part, the
State has conceded error. It agrees that a consecutive commitment for a juvenile’s
supervised-release violation is contrary to R.C. 5139.52(F). Having reviewed the statute,
we find J.R.’s argument to be persuasive.
-3-
{¶ 4} The record reflects that DYS placed J.R. on “parole,” or supervised release,
in August 2018. (Doc. # 19 in T.C. No. 2017-1229). He violated the conditions of that
release and, as set forth above, the trial court ordered him recommitted to DYS custody
for 90 days. Under R.C. 5139.52(F), a period of institutionalization for a supervised-
release violation “shall be served concurrently with any other commitment to the
department of youth services.”1 Therefore, the trial court was obligated by statute to order
the 90-day commitment for the supervised-release violation to be served concurrently
with the other terms it imposed. In re R.H., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104455, 2017-Ohio-
7064, ¶ 7 (“Sentences for juvenile parole violations must be served concurrently. There
is no other alternative.”). J.R.’s assignments of error are sustained.
{¶ 5} Because the trial court’s error did not affect its judgments in the cases in
which J.R. entered admissions (App. Nos. 2018-CA-126, 2018-CA-127, and 2018-CA-
128; T.C. Nos. 2018-0734, 2018-0753, and 2018-0827), the judgment in each of those
cases is affirmed.
{¶ 6} In App. No. 2018-CA-125 (T.C. No. 2017-1229), we reverse the trial court’s
judgment imposing a consecutive 90-day commitment to DYS, and the cause is
remanded for the trial court to impose a concurrent term.
.............
DONOVAN, J. and FROELICH, J., concur.
1 This language in R.C. 5139.52(F) became effective September 19, 2014. It appears to
have been intended to abrogate In re H.V., 138 Ohio St.3d 408, 2014-Ohio-812, 7 N.E.3d
1173, which earlier that year had upheld a trial court’s judgment ordering a juvenile to
serve a commitment for a supervised-release violation consecutively to a commitment for
a new offense.
-4-
Copies sent to:
John M. Lintz
Timothy B. Hackett
Hon. Katrine Lancaster