In re A.S.

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 2558

Syllabus

DELINQUENCY – DUE PROCESS – ADMISSION – R.C. 2152.18(B): The juvenile court violated the juvenile's due-process rights by revoking the juvenile's probation in a delinquency case and imposing a suspended commitment to the Department of Youth Services without following Juv.R. 29 and 35: the state never alleged a probation violation in the case the juvenile court never held a hearing to determine whether the juvenile violated a probation condition and the juvenile court did not determine whether the notice requirements had been met or waived, whether the juvenile admitted to the probation violation, and the possible consequences of an admission. When accepting the juvenile's admission to a probation violation in a delinquency case, the juvenile court had no duty to notify the juvenile that a potential consequence of an admission to the probation violation was revocation of probation in a separate delinquency case, because the state never alleged a probation violation in the separate case as required by Juv.R. 35, and therefore, the juvenile court's continuing jurisdiction in the separate case had not been invoked at the time of the probation-revocation hearing. The trial court erred in denying the juvenile's request under R.C. 2152.18(B) to credit time spent at Abraxas Youth Center, a residential behavioral-health facility, toward his Department of Youth Services commitment: the measures used at Abraxas to ensure the safety of the surrounding community, and the staff control over the juveniles' personal liberties at Abraxas are not distinguishable from those in In re T.W., 2016-Ohio-3131, 66 N.E.3d 93 (1st Dist.), where this court held that the juvenile's time spent in the Hillcrest School constituted confinement. [But see DISSENT: In In re T.W., this court did not apply an appropriate test for confinement, and even if that test were applied, the juvenile's time at Abraxas did not constitute confinement as contemplated by R.C. 2152.18(B).]