In re J.M. ( 2020 )

[Cite as In re J.M., 2020-Ohio-5498.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
IN RE: J.M. : APPEAL NOS. C-200075
C-200076
: C-200077
C-200078
: TRIAL NOS. 19-2342Z
19-3318Z
: 19-3319Z
19-3352Z
:
: O P I N I O N.
Appeals From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court
Judgments Appealed From Are: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause
Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: December 2, 2020
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. Heenan,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Ohio,
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Abigail Christopher, Assistant State
Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant J.M.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
CROUSE, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant J.M. entered admissions to acts which, had they
been committed by an adult, would constitute complicity to aggravated robbery and
complicity to the accompanying firearm specifications for her role in a series of
robberies. The juvenile court committed J.M. to the Ohio Department of Youth
Services (“DYS”) for three years on each of the firearm specifications.
{¶2} J.M. has appealed, arguing in three assignments of error that (1) the
juvenile court erred in imposing three-year commitments for the firearm
specifications where all parties stipulated that she was not the principal offender and
did not furnish, use, or dispose of the gun used by the principal offender; (2) she was
denied the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio
Constitution; and (3) the juvenile court did not substantially comply with Juv.R. 29
when it improperly advised her that she could receive a three-year commitment to
DYS for each firearm specification when she was only complicit to the underlying
offense.
{¶3} If a juvenile is complicit to an offense where the principal offender
would be guilty of a firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145, but the juvenile did
not furnish, use, or dispose of the firearm that was involved in the underlying
offense, in addition to any other penalty, the court may impose no more than a one-
year commitment to DYS. R.C. 2152.17(B)(1).
{¶4} The state concedes that J.M. was not the principal offender and did
not furnish, use, or dispose of the firearm, and therefore, the juvenile court was
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
limited to imposing a maximum commitment of one year on each of the firearm
specifications.
Conclusion
{¶5} The first assignment of error is sustained and the cause is remanded to
the juvenile court to conduct a dispositional hearing on the firearm specifications.
The remainder of the juvenile court’s judgments are affirmed. Due to our disposition
of the first assignment of error, we do not address the second or third assignments of
error.
Judgments affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded.
MOCK, P.J., and BERGERON, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
3