Juvenile Division

Governor Kasich signs H.B. 86

On June 29, 2011, Governor Kasich signed H.B. 86 into law. The bill was widely touted as a first step in criminal and juvenile justice reform. A few highlights from the sentencing reform bill that are specific to juveniles:

A Reverse Transfer provision for kids who were subject to mandatory bindover due to the charged offense, but plead guilty or are convicted of a lesser offense. Depending on the circumstances, the child will return to juvenile court for either a juvenile disposition, an SYO sentence, or an amenability hearing to determine if they will remain in the juvenile system. If the child is sentenced in juvenile court, their adult conviction will be expunged, and the felony will be considered for all purposes as a juvenile adjudication. Click here for a Fact Sheet.

Gun Specifications: If a child is found to be complicit in an offense, and did not provide, use, or dispose of the firearm, the court will have discretion to sentence that child to DYS for a gun specification for a period of up to one year. Previously, kids were being sentenced to up to three years of mandatory time even though they didn’t actually possess the firearm or potentially even know that their co-defendant had a firearm at the time of the offense. Click here for a Fact Sheet.

Judicial Release: Judges will be able to grant early release to kids serving gun specification time in DYS after one year, and grant early release to kids in DYS after the completion of their minimum sentence. Click here for a Fact Sheet.

Competency – Ohio now has a juvenile competency standard and statutes that apply to kids. Click here for a Fact Sheet.

These new provisions will go into effect September 30, 2011.

Vision Statement

The Ohio Public Defender Juvenile Division is a leader in effective advocacy for juveniles in Ohio’s justice system. The Juvenile Division is a team of talented professionals focused primarily on post-disposition advocacy and ensuring that the constitutional rights of children are fully realized and protected. We steadily work toward a holistic approach to helping youth in the justice system and believe that the value of our advocacy extends beyond a juvenile’s duration of confinement. The Division strives to remain at the forefront of the struggle for systemic improvement in juvenile justice through statewide and national collaboration and involvement in policy, education, professional development, and reform initiatives. Our commitment to these efforts protects juveniles' right to be represented by counsel, raises the quality of representation, and promotes the just and humane treatment of juveniles in the legal system.

About the Juvenile Division

The Office of the Ohio Public Defender created a Juvenile Section, a sub-part of the Legal Division, in 1993 in cooperation with the Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS). In 2002, the Juvenile Section won reversals for over 50 juvenile cases due to improper procedures.

The contract with ODYS has since ended, and the Juvenile Section was phased out of the office in 2002 due to budget cuts. After the study Justice Cut Short: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings in Ohio was released in 2003 by the American Bar Association and the Central Juvenile Defender Center, the office was able to regain funding from the General Assembly that was specifically designated to re-create the Juvenile Section. Since 2004, the office has maintained a Memorandum of Understanding with ODYS, that allows our attorneys legal access to ODYS facilities and the youth they incarcerate. The Juvenile Division attorneys represent youth on fact or duration of confinement issues.

In January 2008, Ohio Public Defender Tim Young promoted the Juvenile Section to its own Division, similar in stature to the Legal and Death Penalty Divisions in the office. The Juvenile Division currently represents youth, who range in age from ten to twenty-one years old, who have been committed to the Ohio Department of Youth Services on appeal, post-conviction matters, detention credit issues, sex offender registration issues, and early release. The attorneys in the Juvenile Division also enjoy collaborating with local counsel and county public defender offices and accept cases for appeal on emerging legal issues.

Juvenile Division Attorneys
Jill Beeler	Chief Counsel, Juvenile Division
Laura Austen	Assistant State Public Defender
Charlyn Bohland	Assistant State Public Defender
Brooke Burns	Assistant State Public Defender
Amanda Powell	Assistant State Public Defender
Sheryl Trzaska	Assistant State Public Defender
Support Staff
Heather Pugh	Administrative Assistant

Juvenile News

►

Juvenile detention facility to pay $400,000

(The Columbus Dispatch © 10/12/2011)

A juvenile detention facility in Marietta, Ohio, has agreed to pay about $400,000 and make policy changes to settle a 2010 class-action lawsuit that alleged harsh treatment, including inmates being regularly locked up for 23 hours a day and denied medical care and unrestrained recreation time.

►

Juvenile center suit settled

Washington County has agreed to settle a lawsuit over conditions at its juvenile center by changing policies and paying plaintiffs more than $600,000, despite claims of confidence the county would have prevailed had the case gone to trial.

►

Sentencing Reform: Ohio's Huge Leap Forward

On June 29, 2011, Ohio House Bill 86 (HB 86) was signed into law. HB 86 is focused on undoing the get-tough-on crime approach of the past two decades that has led to overpopulation in the adult and juvenile correctional facilities and ineffective rehabilitation efforts; all at a high cost to taxpayers and communities. In the juvenile justice arena, HB 86 does many things including granting local juvenile courts the ability to monitor and release youth they committed to the custody of the Ohio Department of Youth Services throughout their commitment period; made commitment time for some gun offenses discretionary versus a mandatory period of time; and creates a standard for determining juvenile

“[N]either the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone.”

“Under our Constitution, the condition
of being a boy does not justify a
kangaroo court.”

“Unless appropriate due process of law is followed, even the juvenile who has violated the law may not feel that he is being fairly treated and may therefore resist the rehabilitative efforts
of court personnel.”

In re Gault (1967), 387 U.S. 1