In re D.R.

173 N.E.3d 103

IN RE: D.R.

NO. C-190594

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County.

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 26, 2021

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, Cincinnati, and Paula E. Adams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Ohio.

Raymond T. Faller, Cincinnati, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Jessica Moss, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant D.R.

OPINION.

Crouse, Judge.

{¶1} D.R. has appealed the judgment of the juvenile court continuing his classification as a Tier I juvenile-offender registrant under Ohio's version of the Adam Walsh Act. We hold that D.R.’s continued classification as a Tier I juvenile-offender registrant violated his procedural due-process rights. Therefore, we reverse the juvenile court's order continuing D.R.’s Tier I classification and remand this cause for a new completion-of-disposition hearing under R.C. 2152.84, during which the juvenile court may exercise its discretion to continue D.R.’s classification as a Tier I juvenile-offender registrant or declassify him.

I. Procedural Background

{¶2} On April 5, 2018, D.R. admitted in juvenile court to an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted gross sexual imposition against a victim under the age of 13. D.R. was 16 at the time of the offense; the victim was a 12-year-old friend. D.R. was committed to the Department of Youth Services ("DYS") until age 21. The commitment was suspended, and he was placed on probation and ordered to complete the Lighthouse Youth Services Sex Offender Program. Because D.R. was 16 at the time of the offense, the juvenile court was required to classify him as a juvenile-offender registrant under R.C. 2152.83. On August 23, 2018, the juvenile court classified D.R. as a Tier I juvenile-offender registrant.

{¶3} Pursuant to R.C. 2152.84, the juvenile court magistrate held a completion-of-disposition hearing on June 7, 2019. D.R. raised constitutional challenges to R.C. 2152.83 and 2152.84, which the magistrate overruled. The magistrate noted in her decision that the court had no discretion to declassify D.R. because he was 16 at the time of his offense, and therefore, D.R.’s "classification status will remain a Tier I." After continuing D.R.’s Tier I classification, the magistrate stated in her decision, "Additionally, the Court notes that [D.R.] has successfully completed all conditions imposed upon him by this Court. He has not been convicted of any subsequent offense. He is successfully completing a period of probation; and he has successfully completed an appropriate sex offender treatment program. He is also enrolled in college. Thus, the Court terminates the juvenile's period of probation." D.R. filed objections to the magistrate's decision, which the juvenile court judge overruled. The juvenile court adopted the magistrate's decision as the order of the court, but the court stated that D.R.’s due-process argument had some merit as it pertained to the mandatory classification of 16- and 17-year-old offenders. The juvenile court invited D.R. to raise his due-process argument on appeal. As the juvenile court's initial entry of September 17, 2019, failed to state that the court had continued the Tier I classification, the court entered an order on October 4, 2019, nunc pro tunc to September 17, 2019, stating that the Tier I classification was continued. D.R. has appealed.

II. Analysis

{¶4} R.C. 2152.83 treats juvenile sex offenders differently with respect to classification as juvenile-offender registrants based on their ages at the time of their offenses. A child who was 13 or younger at the time of his offense is not subject to sex-offender classification. R.C. 2152.83(A)(1) and (B)(2). A 14- or 15-year-old offender is subject to discretionary classification in that the juvenile court has discretion to decide whether the child will be classified and into which tier he will be placed. R.C. 2152.83(B)(1). An offender who was 16 or 17 years old at the time of his offense is subject to mandatory classification as a juvenile-offender registrant, but the juvenile court has discretion as to what tier the juvenile will be placed in. R.C. 2152.83(A)(1).

{¶5} R.C. 2152.84(A)(1) provides that upon the completion of the disposition of the child for the sexually oriented offense, the juvenile court "shall conduct a hearing to review the effectiveness of the disposition and of any treatment provided for the child, to determine the risks that the child might re-offend, to determine whether the prior classification of the child as a juvenile offender registrant should be continued or terminated" pursuant to R.C. 2152.84(A)(2), and "to determine whether its prior determination" as to which tier the child should be placed in "should be continued or modified." The court can only lower the child's tier, it cannot increase it. R.C. 2152.84(B)(2) ; In re M.I. , 2017-Ohio-1524, 88 N.E.3d 1276, ¶ 2 (1st Dist.). But pursuant to R.C. 2152.84(A)(2), if the child is a mandatory juvenile-offender registrant who has been placed in the lowest tier classification, Tier I, the juvenile court can do nothing but continue the Tier I classification.

{¶6} We first turn to D.R.’s second assignment of error, which asserts that his continued mandatory classification as a Tier I juvenile-offender registrant pursuant to R.C. 2152.84(A)(2)(a) violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions.

{¶7} In In re M.I. , this court held that the mandatory classification of 16- and 17-year-old sex offenders under R.C. 2152.83(A) and 2152.84(A)(2)(c) does not violate equal protection because the statutes are rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest of protecting the public from sex offenders. We noted the presumption of constitutionality afforded to the statutes and the burden on the juvenile to prove that they are unconstitutional. We stated that the purpose of sex-offender registration is to protect the public, and that the legislature's concern for recidivism and public safety provides a rational basis for treating juvenile sex offenders differently based on their ages. In re M.I. at ¶ 2-6. M.I. did not raise, and therefore, we did not address whether M.I.’s due-process rights were violated, leaving that question open. D.R.’s second assignment of error is overruled.

{¶8} D.R.’s first assignment of error asserts that his continued classification as a Tier I offender violated his right to due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution. D.R. argues that although R.C. 2152.84(A)(1) entitles him to a completion-of-disposition hearing, his status as a 16-year-old mandatory juvenile-offender registrant who has been classified in the lowest tier, Tier I, means that the hearing is meaningless because the juvenile court has no discretion to declassify him. He argues that although the court is required to hold the hearing and consider the statutory factors, the result of the hearing is a foregone conclusion because the juvenile court can do nothing but continue his classification as a Tier I offender. The rehabilitative goal of the juvenile court is undermined by eliminating the discretion of the juvenile judge. This, he argues, does not comport with procedural due process.

{¶9} The Due Course of Law provision in Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution is the equivalent of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State v. Aalim , 150 Ohio St.3d 489, 2017-Ohio-2956, 83 N.E.3d 883, ¶ 15. "The Due Process Clause is applicable in juvenile proceedings, and although its requirements are inexact, fundamental fairness is the overarching concern," and "a balanced approach is necessary to preserve the special nature of the juvenile process while protecting procedural fairness." In re D.C. , 2019-Ohio-4860, 149 N.E.3d 989, ¶ 35 (1st Dist.), citing State v. D.H. , 120 Ohio St.3d 540, 2009-Ohio-9, 901 N.E.2d 209, ¶ 51. "Procedural due process requires ‘that an individual be given an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ " In re Raheem L. , 2013-Ohio-2423, 993 N.E.2d 455, ¶ 6 (1st Dist.), quoting Morrison v. Warren , 375 F.3d 468, 475 (6th Cir. 2004), citing Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). This court noted in In re M.I. that the "Ohio Supreme Court has held that under the Due Process Clause of the Ohio Constitution, a juvenile has a right to ‘fundamental fairness’ that is violated where mandatory provisions in the juvenile statutes eliminate the ‘ "essential element of the juvenile process"—the judge's discretion.’ " In re M.I. at ¶ 7, quoting In re D.S. , 146 Ohio St.3d 182, 2016-Ohio-1027, 54 N.E.3d 1184, ¶ 30, citing In re C.P. , 131 Ohio St.3d 513, 2012-Ohio-1446, 967 N.E.2d 729, ¶ 77.

{¶10} In In re C.P. , the Ohio Supreme Court held that R.C. 2152.86 violated due process to the extent that it imposed lifelong registration and notification requirements on juvenile sex offenders who were tried within the juvenile system. In re C.P. at ¶ 86. The court stated that "fundamental fairness is the overarching concern" in determining due-process standards as they relate to juveniles. Id. at ¶ 71, quoting D.H. at ¶ 44. The court noted that in requiring the imposition of a lifetime punishment with no chance of reconsideration for 25 years, R.C. 2152.86 eliminated the discretion of the juvenile judge. Id. at ¶ 77. The juvenile judge has no opportunity to determine whether the juvenile has been rehabilitated. Id. at ¶ 82-83. The court stated that an "automatic longterm punishment is contrary to the juvenile court's emphasis on individual, corrective treatment and rehabilitation." Id. The imposition of an adult penalty with no input from the juvenile judge, who does not decide the appropriateness of the penalty,...