In re J.B.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re J.B., 2011-Ohio-4530.] COURT OF APPEALS MORROW COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT IN RE: J.B. A Minor Child : : : : : : : : : JUDGES: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. Case No. 2011-CA-0002 OPINION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Morrow County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 2010JD00181 JUDGMENT: Vacated DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 6, 2011 APPEARANCES: For State of Ohio For J.B. CHARLES HOWLAND Morrow County Prosecutor 60 E. High Street Mount Gilead, OH 43338 Gwin, P.J. AMANDA J. POWELL Assistant Public Defender 250 East Broad St., Ste. 1400 Columbus, OH 43215 {¶1} J.B., a minor child, appeals a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, of Morrow County, Ohio, which classified him as a Tier III Juvenile Sex Offender registrant. Appellant assigns six errors to the trial court: {¶2} I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT CLASSIFIED J.B. AS A JUVENILE OFFENDER REGISTRANT BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAKE THAT DETERMINATION UPON HIS RELEASE FROM A SECURE FACILITY, AS REQUIRED BY R.C. 2152.83 (A)(1). {¶3} II. THE MORROW COUNTY JUVENILE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT FOUND THAT J.B. S CLASSIFICATION AS A TIER III JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRANT WAS MANDATORY IN VIOLATION OF R.C.2950.01. {¶4} III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED J.B. TO BE SUBJECT TO COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION. {¶5} IV. THE JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT CLASSIFIED J.B. AS A TIER III JUVENILE OFFENDER REGISTRANT BECAUSE THE APPLICATION OF R.C. 2152.83 TO HIM VIOLATES HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, SECTION 2 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION. {¶6} V. THE MORROW COUNTY JUVENILE COURT ERRED WHEN IT IMPROPERLY NOTIFIED J.B. THAT, AS A JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRANT, HE WAS PROHIBITED FROM LIVING WITHIN ONE THOUSAND FEET FROM A SCHOOL, IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2950.034(a). {¶7} VI. J.B. WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO FAMILIARIZE HERSELF WITH OHIO S JUVENILE OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES. {¶8} In the disposition phase of J.B. s case, the court committed him to the Ohio Department of Youth Services for a minimum period of three years, maximum of his twenty-first birthday. The trial court also found he was Tier III Juvenile Sex Offender registrant. {¶9} Appellant argues if a child is committed to the Department of Youth Services, then pursuant to statute, the determination of his status as a sexual offender must not be made until he is released. In Re: J.O., A Minor Child, Licking App. No. 09CA-0135, 2010-Ohio-4296; R.C. 2152.83 (A). {¶10} The State concedes the trial court s determination of whether J.B. should be designated as a juvenile offender registrant subject to classification and registration requirements was premature. {¶11} The first assignment of error is sustained. {¶12} Appellant s other assignments of error are moot. {¶13} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, of Morrow County, Ohio, is vacated. By Gwin, P.J., Hoffman, J., and Delaney, J., concur _________________________________ HON. W. SCOTT GWIN _________________________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN _________________________________ WSG:clw 0822 HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MORROW COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT IN RE: J.B. A Minor Child : : : : : : : : : : JUDGMENT ENTRY CASE NO. 2011-CA-0002 For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, of Morrow County, Ohio, is vacated. Costs to appellee. _________________________________ HON. W. SCOTT GWIN _________________________________ HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN _________________________________ HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
