[Cite as In re L.S., 2018-Ohio-5005.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OTTAWA COUNTY In re L.S. Court of Appeals No. OT-18-013 Trial Court No. 2016-JO-A 304 DECISION AND JUDGMENT Decided: December 14, 2018 ***** Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Timothy B. Hackett, Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant. James J. VanEerten, Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney, and Barbara Gallé Rivas, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. ***** PIETRYKOWSKI, J. {¶ 1} Appellant, L.S., appeals the judgment of the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, classifying him as a Tier I sex offender under R.C. 2152.83. For the reasons that follow, we affirm, in part, and reverse, in part. I. Facts and Procedural Background {¶ 2} On November 14, 2016, the juvenile court adjudicated the 16-year-old appellant delinquent of one count of rape, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c), a felony of the first degree if committed by an adult. At disposition on November 21, 2016, the juvenile court committed appellant to the Ohio Department of Youth Services (“DYS”) for a minimum period of one year, up to appellant’s 21st birthday. The court suspended the commitment on the condition that appellant: serve 90 days in the Juvenile Detention Facility, noting that he would be transferred to the Juvenile Residential Center of Northwest Ohio (“JRCNO”) upon the opening of an available bed; successfully complete all treatment at JRCNO, including all aftercare recommendations; continue to follow all terms and provisions of probation; and, upon release, successfully complete all terms and provisions of intensive probation. The court further ordered that a classification hearing for purposes of appellant’s sex offender registration be held upon his release from JRCNO. {¶ 3} On May 26, 2017, the state filed a motion to impose appellant’s suspended DYS commitment, asserting that appellant had refused to complete a sex offender treatment program at JRCNO, had become a disruption at the facility, and wished to be sent to DYS. On May 30, 2017, the juvenile court held a hearing on the motion, and found that appellant failed to successfully complete treatment at JRCNO. The juvenile court then imposed the suspended DYS commitment and ordered that appellant successfully complete all sex offender treatment at DYS prior to his release. The juvenile 2. court did not classify appellant as a juvenile sex offender registrant at the time. Instead, the court noted that “A hearing shall be held to determine the classification of [appellant] as a juvenile sex offender registrant at the time of his release from the secured facility.” Appellant filed appeals concerning his original adjudication and the imposition of his suspended commitment to DYS in case Nos. OT-17-021 and OT-17-025, respectively. Those appeals were consolidated, and on November 30, 2018, we released our decision in In re L.S., 6th Dist. Ottawa Nos. OT-17-021, OT-17-025, 2018-Ohio-4758. {¶ 4} On March 27, 2018, three days before appellant was scheduled to be released from DYS, the juvenile court held the sex offender classification hearing. Appellant moved that the hearing be ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals