In re C.S.
Decision Date | 27 September 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 2006-1074.,2006-1074. |
Citation | 115 Ohio St.3d 267,2007 Ohio 4919,874 N.E.2d 1177 |
Parties | In re C.S. |
Court | Ohio 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.
{¶ 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.
{¶ 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.
{¶ 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).
{¶ 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, 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:
{¶ 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:
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. J.R.
-
In re K.K.
...{¶ 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.
-
In re D.R.
...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......