“Because the clerk did not journalize the order invoking the adult portion of the SYO sentence until after A.W. turned 21, the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over him.”

Justice Stewart, opinion of the Court

On April 16, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in In re A.W., Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-1457. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Stewart, the Court held that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to invoke the adult portion of the serious youthful offender sentence in this case. The case was argued December 10, 2019.

Case Background

This is very detailed, but ultimately determines the outcome of the case.

In October of 2016, then 20-year-old A.W. admitted that in 2013, when he was 17, he committed an act which would have been rape if committed by an adult. The complaint was amended to add a serious youthful offender(“SYO”) specification. The state had filed the original complaint earlier but A.W. had gone on the lam after the state moved to transfer the case to adult court.

A.W. was placed in the custody of the Department of Youth Services (“DYS”) until May 23, 2017, his 21^st birthday. The juvenile court also found A.W. to be a serious youthful offender and imposed a stayed three-year adult prison sentence.

The juvenile court indicated on the record that A.W. should receive sex offender treatment, but the court’s October 2016 dispositional entry made no mention of such treatment.

In January of 2017, about three months after the entry of the dispositional order, the juvenile court ordered A.W. to participate in sex offender treatment and stated that failure to do so could result in the invocation of the adult portion of his sentence. This January entry also noted that A.W. was refusing to take responsibility for his actions and was not participating in the sex offender treatment.

In early May 2017, the juvenile court acknowledged that A.W. couldn’t complete the sex-offender treatment because A.W. had failed to own up to his issues initially, making completion of treatment impossible before he turned 21, because DYS failed to provide adequate treatment options on time, because the court hadn’t been notified in a timely manner of A.W.’s initial failure to engage in treatment, and because of the court’s own failure specifically to order treatment at the time of the disposition.

On May 18, 2017, the state moved to invoke the adult portion of A.W.’s SYO sentence because of A.W.’s failure to complete the mandatory court-ordered sex-offender treatment. The juvenile court held a hearing on this motion on May 22, 2017, which was the day before A.W.’s 21^st birthday. At that hearing a psychologist testified about A.W.’s lack of participation in the required sex-offender treatment. The juvenile court terminated the juvenile disposition and invoked the adult sentence but reduced that sentence from three years to two.

In a split decision, the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appeals court found that the trial court did not need to order sex offender treatment officially for DYS to require treatment because the DYS had broad authority to issue any orders it found necessary for the treatment of children in its care.  The appeals court also found A.W. was properly notified that failure to complete the court-ordered sex offender treatment could trigger the adult portion of his sentence. Finally, the appeals court rejected A.W.’s argument that it was impossible for him to complete the sex-offender treatment program given his seven-month commitment to DYS, finding that the trial court did not condition invocation of the adult portion of the sentence upon completion of the program.

Read the oral argument preview of the case here and the analysis of the argument here.

Key Precedent

R.C. 2152.22(A) (Original jurisdiction exists for dispositional orders entered by the juvenile court “until terminated or modified by the court or until the child attains twenty-one years of age.”)

Craig v. Welply, 104 Ohio St. 312 (1922) (The date of journalization determines the starting time to challenge a judgment.)

State ex rel. Jean- Baptiste v. Kirsch, 2012-Ohio-5697 (A juvenile court only has original jurisdiction over individuals under 18 years of age.)

State v. Hampton, 2012-Ohio-5688 (A court of record speaks through its journal.)

State v. Apanovitch, 2018- Ohio-4744 (A juvenile court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to invoke an SYO sentence where the order is not journalized until after the individual turns 21 years old.)

A.W.’s Proposition of Law Accepted for Review

The adult portion of an SYO sentence cannot be invoked for failure to complete ODYS programming unless the offender was given notice that the failure to comply could trigger invocation of the adult sentence and it was possible for the offender to have completed it.

Does the Court Adopt A.W.’s Proposition of Law?

The Court never reaches the merits of the case, which it dismisses for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. So, the Court declares the proposition of law moot.

Analysis

This is short and sweet. Juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction over persons under 18 alleged to be delinquent. As for dispositional orders, that original jurisdiction exists with exceptions not applicable here until “terminated or modified by the court or until the child reaches 21 years of age.”

A.W. turned 21 on May 23, 2017. Although the juvenile court issued its order invoking the adult sentence on May 22, 2017, the entry wasn’t journalized until May 23, 2017. It is set in stone that a court speaks through its entry, which wasn’t journalized until after AW. had turned 21. Too late. Order void.

Case Disposition

Court of Appeals is reversed, and the adult portion of A.W.’s juvenile disposition is vacated, sua sponte.

Trial Judge

Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Judge Denise Rini

Eighth District Panel

Opinion author Judge Eileen T. Gallagher, joined by Judge Frank Celebrezze, Jr. Judge Kathleen Ann Keough dissented, but not on grounds pertinent to the disposition of this appeal.

Concluding Observations

Both student contributor Maggie Pollitt and I called this for A.W. which I guess technically is correct, but in the end none of it mattered because of the lack of jurisdiction.

The bench was hot and all over the place with questions about the details of what happened in this case. The justices were concerned about the lack of a judicial order for treatment in the first place, about whether A.W. had adequate notice of what was required of him, about the treatment options that were actually available to him, about when and whether A.W. could feasibly complete any treatment before he turned 21, and ultimately, about whose fault this whole sloppy hot mess was.  

It was nice of Justice Stewart to go to all the trouble with the details here, when she probably could have just written that because the order invoking the adult portion of the sentence was journalized after A.W. had turned 21, there was no subject matter jurisdiction.