In re C.S.

Decision Date27 September 2007
Docket NumberNo. 2006-1074.,2006-1074.
Citation115 Ohio St.3d 267,2007 Ohio 4919,874 N.E.2d 1177
PartiesIn re C.S.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and Amanda J. Powell, Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Becker, Licking County Prosecuting Attorney, and Daniel H. Huston, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee state of Ohio.

Marsha L. Levick, Mia V. Carpiniello, Jennifer K. Pokempner, Lourdes M. Rosado, and Riya S. Shah, pro hac vice, urging reversal for amicus curiae Juvenile Law Center.

Kim Brooks Tandy, urging reversal for amicus curiae Children's Law Center, Inc.

Jeffrey M. Gamso, Toledo, urging reversal for amici curiae ACLU of Ohio Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union, Children's Defense Fund, and National Association of Counsel for Children.

Yeura R. Venters, urging reversal for amicus curiae Franklin County Public Defender.

Kay Locke, urging reversal for amicus curiae Montgomery County Public Defender.

Emily Hagan, urging reversal for amici curiae Voices for Ohio's Children and Juvenile Justice Coalition.

Linda Julian, urging reversal for amici curiae Juvenile Justice Advocacy Alliance and Alternatives for Youth.

Katherine Hunt Federle and Jason A. Macke, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Justice for Children Project.

Charles M. Clovis, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

O'CONNOR, J.

{¶ 1} Forty years after the Supreme Court's watershed ruling in In re Gault (1967), 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527, we address important questions concerning the scope of a juvenile's right to counsel in a delinquency proceeding and the waiver of that right. We hold that the juvenile's right to counsel is a right that he may waive, subject to certain conditions.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

{¶ 2} Appellant, C.S., was brought before the Juvenile Division of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas on August 9, 2005. At that time, he was almost 14 years old.

A. THE INCIDENTS

{¶ 3} C.S.'s appearance in court was for purposes of two cases. The first, No. A2005-0616, charged C.S. with two counts of grand theft, felonies of the fourth degree if committed by an adult. The second, No. A2004-0329, alleged that C.S. had violated conditions of his probation, which had been imposed in an earlier, unrelated assault case.

{¶ 4} The facts of the theft case are largely undisputed; C.S. and one of his friends waived their rights to an attorney and made admissions to the police. Those admissions included statements that they had stolen two cars and had used them to traverse three central Ohio counties while committing various criminal acts from August 3, 2005, through August 7, 2005. Indeed, the magistrate hearing the case initially termed the boys' activities "a regular crime spree." The crime spree allegedly included the theft of the cars and the destruction of one, the repeated burglarizing of a trailer (stealing electronic equipment and a firearm from it), the procurement and use of alcohol and cocaine-laced marijuana, engaging in sexual relations with an adult woman, and cruelty to animals (shooting a cow and a horse multiple times).

B. THE HEARING

{¶ 5} At some point prior to an initial hearing held on August 9, 2005, C.S. and his mother received the common pleas court's notice and order to appear. The document, entitled "Order to Appear and Explanation of Rights," sets forth seven pages of information.

{¶ 6} Included on the first page of the document is a section captioned "Your Right to an Attorney." That section clearly states, "You have the right to be represented by an attorney at all stages of this proceeding" and that an attorney will be appointed if "you cannot afford an attorney and you qualify under State guidelines."

{¶ 7} The document further states, "You should contact the Clerk's Office seven (7) days in advance of your scheduled hearing and the Clerk will advise you how to apply for a Court-appointed attorney." Given that C.S. does not appear to have been taken into custody until August 7 or August 8, and that his hearing was held on August 9, he could not have complied with that notice provision.

{¶ 8} On the page that follows, after a section that sets forth "Your Rights in Court," the papers contain a section entitled "Waiver of Attorney." That section states, "The undersigned have read the instructions concerning our right to an attorney and the right to a Court-appointed attorney, if applicable. Knowing and understanding these rights, we hereby waive our right to be represented by an attorney or Court-appointed attorney. We further understand that we can be represented by an attorney in the future simply by advising the Court of our intention to do so." Ms. S. and C.S. signed the lines designated for "parent" and "juvenile" in that section.

{¶ 9} At the hearing, the magistrate stated in open court that he had "two sets of rights papers" — an apparent reference to the notice to appear and its explanation of rights. The magistrate verified that C.S. had received the papers, read them, and understood the rights set forth on them and that C.S. and his mother had signed the papers.

{¶ 10} The magistrate also inquired of C.S. and his mother as follows:

{¶ 11} "THE COURT: Do you understand that you have the right to be represented by an attorney at today's hearing?

{¶ 12} "C.S.: Yes, sir.

{¶ 13} "THE COURT: If you cannot afford an attorney and you qualify under state guidelines, I will appoint an attorney to represent you. Do you understand that?

{¶ 14} "C.S.: Yes, sir.

{¶ 15} "THE COURT: Do you wish to go forward with today's hearing without an attorney?

{¶ 16} "C.S.: Yes, sir.

{¶ 17} "THE COURT: Ms. S., do you agree with C.S.'s decision today to go forward without an attorney?

{¶ 18} "MS. S.: Yes, sir."

{¶ 19} The magistrate then explained the charges against appellant, including the degree of the offenses charged. After each offense was stated, the magistrate asked C.S. whether he understood the charge. Each time, C.S. answered that he did.

{¶ 20} After each affirmative response, the magistrate asked whether C.S. admitted or denied the charge. C.S. admitted every charge. The magistrate then continued:

{¶ 21} "THE COURT: If you admit these charges today, C.S., that's basically the same as pleading guilty. Do you understand that?

{¶ 22} "C.S.: Yes, sir.

{¶ 23} "THE COURT: As a result then we would not have an adjudicatory hearing or trial in either of these cases. Do you understand that?

{¶ 24} "C.S.: Yes, sir.

{¶ 25} "THE COURT: Instead we would proceed directly to disposition, that is, for me to decide what punishment or conditions if any that should be imposed upon you. Do you understand that?

{¶ 26} "C.S.: Yes, sir.

{¶ 27} "THE COURT: By entering that plea you will be — well, first of all, that disposition in your case in A2005-0616 could include a commitment to the custody of the Ohio Department of Youth Services for a minimum period of six months or twelve months and a maximum period not to exceed age twenty-one. Do you understand that?

{¶ 28} "C.S.: Yes, sir.

{¶ 29} "THE COURT: Do you understand what the Ohio Department of Youth Services is?

{¶ 30} "C.S.: Yes, sir.

{¶ 31} "THE COURT: What is it?

{¶ 32} "C.S.: Juvenile prison, sir.

{¶ 33} "THE COURT: That's correct. By entering that plea of admit you will be waiving or giving up certain Constitutionally guaranteed rights that you would otherwise enjoy. Among the rights that you will be giving up is the right to remain silent. Do you understand that?

{¶ 34} "C.S.: Yes, sir.

{¶ 35} "THE COURT: You will also be giving up the right to call witnesses and to present evidence in your defense. Do you understand that?

{¶ 36} "C.S.: Yes, sir.

{¶ 37} "THE COURT: And you'll be giving up the right to question and to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. Do you understand that?

{¶ 38} "C.S.: Yes, sir.

{¶ 39} "THE COURT: Ordinarily, C.S., the State of Ohio would be required to prove these cases against you beyond a reasonable doubt. If you enter a plea of admit, however, the State of Ohio will not have to prove anything at all. Do you understand that?

{¶ 40} "C.S.: Yes, sir.

{¶ 41} "THE COURT: Have there been any promises or threats of any sort to cause you to enter these pleas?

{¶ 42} "C.S.: No, sir.

{¶ 43} "THE COURT: Ms. S., do you agree with C.S.'s decision today to enter pleas of admission to these charges?

{¶ 44} "MS. S.: Yes, sir.

{¶ 45} "THE COURT: Then, C.S., I'll accept the pleas of admission. Is there any statement about this situation that you wish to make?

{¶ 46} "C.S.: No, sir.

{¶ 47} "THE COURT: Have you talked with your mother since you got arrested?

{¶ 48} "C.S.: No, sir.

{¶ 49} "THE COURT: Ms. S., did you have an opportunity to read the police report?

{¶ 50} "MS. S.: No, sir.

{¶ 51} "THE COURT: I think it's safe to say, Ms. S. and C.S. * * * — it's safe to assume that there will be more * * * felony charges coming. I — I don't know when. It'll — it's going to be in the jurisdiction of Perry County. They'll transfer those cases up here so we'll deal with them, but in terms of the filing the complaints, it'll be the Perry County Prosecutor that has to file those complaints. But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I just wanted you to know that because of the burglaries, the firearm thefts, the discharging of the firearm, animal cruelty, underage consumption, drug — felony drug possession charges—what else? What am I missing? That's probably it. Underage alcohol, possession of marijuana, possession of cocaine, burglary, animal cruelty, theft of a firearm. That pretty much covers it, doesn't it?

{¶ 52} "C.S.: Yes sir. B and E, sir.

{¶ 53} "THE COURT: And the B and E. Well, burglary. It'll be a burglary because it's a home. Did you do — oh, well, the trailer, was it — someone living in that trailer too?

{¶ 54} "C.S.: It...

To continue reading

Request your trial
185 cases
  • State v. J.R.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 19 Mayo 2022
  • In re K.K.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 3 Noviembre 2022
    ...{¶ 75} Juvenile courts are not constitutional courts in Ohio. See Article IV, Section 1, Ohio Constitution. They are creatures of statute. In re C.S. at 66; R.C. 2151.011(A); Article IV, Section 15, Ohio Constitution. Since creating the first juvenile court almost 120 years ago, the General......
  • State v. Gardner, 2007-0375.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 18 Junio 2008
  • In re D.R.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 16 Diciembre 2022
    ...to juveniles by the Sixth Amendment but "flows to the juvenile through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." In re C.S., 115 Ohio St.3d 267, 2007-Ohio-4919, 874 N.E.2d 1177, ¶ 79. {¶ 14} We examine juvenile procedural-due-process claims through a framework of fundamental fair......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT