FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Friday, November 17, 2023
CAPTION: IN RE: D.K. AND D.K.
APPEAL NO.: C-220587
TRIAL NO.: F19-1553Z
KEY WORDS: LEGAL CUSTODY – ABUSE OF DISCRETION – JUV.R. 40 – INDEPENDENT REVIEW – AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPLEMENT AN INCOMPLETE TRANSCRIPT – RECORDING ERROR – DUE PROCESS – BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD – APP.R. 12(B)
SUMMARY: The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in conducting its independent review of the magistrate’s decision where Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(b) expressly authorizes the juvenile court to adopt the magistrate’s findings in their entirety and the juvenile court added additional reasoning in its decision to respond to mother’s objections.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in conducting its independent review by relying on an affidavit of testimony that was presented to the magistrate but not transcribed because of an error where Juv.R. 40(D)(4)(b) expressly authorizes the juvenile court to take additional evidence when acting on objections to a magistrate’s decision.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in conducting its independent review by deferring to the magistrate’s findings of witness credibility, despite taking an affidavit, because the affidavit contained mother’s testimony originally presented to the magistrate.
The juvenile court did not err when it ordered mother to submit an affidavit of the evidence that was presented at the hearing before the magistrate but not transcribed because of a recording error where Juv.R. 40(D) permits an affidavit to supplement a transcript where parts of that transcript are unavailable.
The juvenile court did not violate mother’s procedural-due-process rights by ordering mother to submit an affidavit where an affidavit is a proper cure for a recording error and mother gained the benefit of submitting a 48-page affidavit of testimony without opposing counsel to potentially object or cross-examine mother.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in making its best-interest determination where its judgment addresses all statutory best-interest factors and supports each determination with competent and credible evidence.
It would be inappropriate for a court of appeals to use App.R. 12(B) to dictate legal custody as a matter of law contrary to the juvenile court’s determination where the juvenile court has knowledge gained by observing the witnesses and the parties over five years of proceedings.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by WINKLER, P.J.; BOCK and KINSLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: In re: R.C.
APPEAL NOS.: C-220660, C-220661, C-230030
TRIAL NOS.: 18-1541Z, 18-1547Z
KEY WORDS: serious youthful offender – R.C. 2152.14 – Doctrine of laches – due process – ineffective assistance of counsel – discovery – evidence – exclusionary rule – authentication
SUMMARY: The juvenile court did not err when it rejected the juvenile defendant’s doctrine-of-laches argument where the government’s delay in bringing its motion to invoke the suspended adult portion of defendant’s Serious Youthful Offender (“SYO”) disposition was based on a reasonable justification.
The juvenile court did not err to the prejudice of defendant’s due-process or effective-assistance-of-counsel rights when it rejected several of defendant’s evidentiary objections because evidence was turned over to defendant’s adult-court counsel, neither the Ohio Rules of Evidence nor the exclusionary rule applies to SYO-invocation proceedings, and court records were properly admitted.
The juvenile court did not err when it invoked the adult portion of defendant’s SYO disposition because the court’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where there was clear and convincing evidence that defendant was in possession of a fentanyl-related compound and was in constructive possession of two firearms while under disability.
JUDGMENTS: Affirmed in C-220660 and C-220661; appeal dismissed IN C230030
JUDGES: Opinion by Crouse, P.J.; Winkler and Bock, JJ., concur.
CAPTION: STATE V. FRYE
APPEAL NO: C-230002
TRIAL NO: B-2204993
KEY WORDS: SEX OFFENSES – MEGAN’S LAW – FAILURE TO VERIFY CURRENT ADDRESS
SUMMARY: Defendant’s conviction for failing to verify his current address under R.C. 2950.06 was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where the evidence showed that he was convicted of rape on March 17, 2006, and sentenced to seven years’ incarceration; he was released on January 4, 2013; as a sexually oriented offender under Megan’s Law he was required to verify his current address annually for ten years; he was required to verify his current address on January 7, 2022; when he did not do so, he was sent a notification letter stating that he had to verify his current address by January 19, 2022; and he did not verify his current address by that date.
Due process does not require a trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether a defendant is a sexually oriented offender under Megan’s Law, because that classification attaches as a matter of law.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by BERGERON, P.J.; WINKLER and BOCK, JJ., CONCUR.