[Cite as In re C.B.G., 2026-Ohio-950.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
IN RE: C.B.G. : : C.A. No. 30624 : : Trial Court Case No. A-2024-002676- : 0C : : (Appeal from Common Pleas Court- : Juvenile Division) : : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & OPINION ...........
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on March 20, 2026, the judgment of the
trial court is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
the opinion.
Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.
Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately
serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.
Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified
copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note
the service on the appellate docket.
For the court,
MICHAEL L. TUCKER, JUDGE
LEWIS, P.J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur. OPINION MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30624
FAITH M.R. EDWARDS, Attorney for Appellant JONATHAN D. MURRAY, Attorney for Appellee State of Ohio
TUCKER J.
{¶ 1} C.B.G., a minor, appeals from a judgment denying his motion to strike the words
“guilty” and “conviction” in the juvenile court’s order of disposition and judgment. For the
following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
I. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} In June 2024, a complaint was filed against C.B.G. in the Montgomery County
Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division. The complaint alleged that C.B.G. had committed
an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the offense of felonious
assault (serious physical harm), a second-degree felony under R.C. 2903.11(A)(1). The
State of Ohio filed a motion to transfer the case to the Montgomery County Court of Common
Pleas, General Division in order to try C.B.G., who was 17 years old at the time of the
offense, as an adult. Thereafter, C.B.G. waived indictment which permitted the State to
proceed on a bill of information. C.B.G. was then charged, in the bill of information, with
felonious assault (serious physical harm) along with a serious youthful (SYO) specification.
The State withdrew the motion to transfer on March 3, 2025. On that date, C.B.G. admitted
to one count of felonious assault with an SYO specification.
{¶ 3} On the juvenile portion of the case, the court’s disposition included C.B.G.’s
commitment to the Department of Youth Services for a minimum of one year and a maximum
period not to exceed his twenty-first birthday. The court also sentenced him to a prison
2 term of eight to ten years under the SYO specification. The adult sentence was stayed
pending the C.B.G.’s successful completion of the juvenile disposition.
{¶ 4} The juvenile court’s judgment entry stated that C.B.G. “entered a written plea
agreement in open court in which he pled guilty to the charge of Felonious Assault (Serious
Physical Harm) and Serious Youth Offender Specification.” The court also stated that “the
juvenile entered a plea of guilty to the charge of Felonious Assault (Serious Physical Harm)
and Serious Youth Offender Specification.” The court further stated that it “ACCEPTS the
juvenile’s plea and FINDS the juvenile guilty of the offense to which said plea was entered.”
Finally, the trial court’s judgment included a statement that the juvenile had been convicted
of felonious assault.
{¶ 5} C.B.G. filed a motion in the trial court seeking to strike all references to the trial
court’s use of the terms “conviction/convicted” and “guilty/guilty plea.” The trial court
overruled the motion.
{¶ 6} C.B.G. appeals.
II. Analysis
{¶ 7} The sole assignment of error asserted by C.B.G. states as follows:
THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY JUVENILE COURT ERRED BY DENYING
C.G.’S MOTION TO STRIKE BECAUSE A CHILD DOES NOT ENTER A
GUILTY PLEA OR RECEIVE A CONVICTION WHEN THE CHILD RECEIVES
A SERIOUS YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DISPOSITION.
{¶ 8} C.B.G. contends the juvenile court erred by denying his motion to strike the
portions of the journal entry in which the court utilized the term “guilty plea” and the word
“conviction” which he argues are improper in the juvenile court setting. In support, he cites
In re J.L., 2021-Ohio-3823 (8th Dist.).
3 {¶ 9} In J.L., the Eighth District addressed the exact issue raised in this appeal.1 The
court ruled that the use of the words “guilty plea” and “conviction” are inappropriate in a
juvenile case, even one with a serious youth offender specification, stating as follows:
Historically, juvenile courts were designed “to provide for the care,
protection, and mental and physical development of children, to protect the
public from wrongful acts committed by juvenile delinquents, and to rehabilitate
errant children and bring them back to productive citizenship.” In re Caldwell,
76 Ohio St.3d 156, 158, 666 N.E.2d 1367 (1996), citing R.C. 2151.01. In
Caldwell, the court emphasized that “[p]unishment is not the goal of the
juvenile system, except as necessary to direct the child toward the goal of
rehabilitation.” Id.
After Caldwell was decided, the Ohio General Assembly enacted R.C.
Chapter 2152.13, Ohio's Serious Youthful Offender statute, which allows the
juvenile court to impose more punitive, adult sanctions than those previously
imposed on youthful offenders. See R.C. 2152.13. R.C. 2152.11(A)
establishes various dispositions for children adjudicated delinquent and states
that a juvenile defendant who commits certain acts is eligible for “a more
restrictive disposition.” The “more restrictive disposition,” known as the SYO
disposition, creates a blended sentence that combines a traditional juvenile
disposition with a stayed adult sentence. R.C. 2152.13. Under this
framework, the adult sentence remains stayed and is never invoked unless the
juvenile fails to successfully complete his or her traditional juvenile disposition.
1 Decided in 2021, J.L. involved what the court noted was “a case of first impression.”Id. at ¶ 11. We have not found, and the parties have not cited, any other case addressing this issue.
4 R.C. 2152.13(D)(2)(a)(iii). Moreover, a juvenile charged as a potential SYO
is not automatically bound over to an adult court. Rather, the case remains in
the juvenile court, whose goals are rehabilitative rather than punitive. In re
D.H., 120 Ohio St.3d 540, 2009-Ohio-9, 901 N.E.2d 209, ¶ 18; State v. Hand,
149 Ohio St.3d 94, 2016-Ohio-5504, 73 N.E.3d 448, ¶ 14.
...
[T]he criminal rules and statutes referenced in R.C. 2152.13 apply to
ensure that the constitutional rights of potential SYOs are protected.
Immediately after stating that these adult criminal provisions apply while the
child is detained and awaiting adjudication, the statute goes on to state that
“[t]he juvenile court shall afford the child all rights afforded a person who is
prosecuted for committing a crime including the right to counsel and the right
to raise the issue of competency.” R.C. 2152.13(C)(2). Moreover,
application of adult criminal rules to potential SYOs does not change the fact
that SYOs remain within the juvenile court's jurisdiction unless or until the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as In re C.B.G., 2026-Ohio-950.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
IN RE: C.B.G. : : C.A. No. 30624 : : Trial Court Case No. A-2024-002676- : 0C : : (Appeal from Common Pleas Court- : Juvenile Division) : : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & OPINION ...........
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on March 20, 2026, the judgment of the
trial court is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
the opinion.
Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.
Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately
serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.
Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified
copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note
the service on the appellate docket.
For the court,
MICHAEL L. TUCKER, JUDGE
LEWIS, P.J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur. OPINION MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30624
FAITH M.R. EDWARDS, Attorney for Appellant JONATHAN D. MURRAY, Attorney for Appellee State of Ohio
TUCKER J.
{¶ 1} C.B.G., a minor, appeals from a judgment denying his motion to strike the words
“guilty” and “conviction” in the juvenile court’s order of disposition and judgment. For the
following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
I. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} In June 2024, a complaint was filed against C.B.G. in the Montgomery County
Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division. The complaint alleged that C.B.G. had committed
an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the offense of felonious
assault (serious physical harm), a second-degree felony under R.C. 2903.11(A)(1). The
State of Ohio filed a motion to transfer the case to the Montgomery County Court of Common
Pleas, General Division in order to try C.B.G., who was 17 years old at the time of the
offense, as an adult. Thereafter, C.B.G. waived indictment which permitted the State to
proceed on a bill of information. C.B.G. was then charged, in the bill of information, with
felonious assault (serious physical harm) along with a serious youthful (SYO) specification.
The State withdrew the motion to transfer on March 3, 2025. On that date, C.B.G. admitted
to one count of felonious assault with an SYO specification.
{¶ 3} On the juvenile portion of the case, the court’s disposition included C.B.G.’s
commitment to the Department of Youth Services for a minimum of one year and a maximum
period not to exceed his twenty-first birthday. The court also sentenced him to a prison
2 term of eight to ten years under the SYO specification. The adult sentence was stayed
pending the C.B.G.’s successful completion of the juvenile disposition.
{¶ 4} The juvenile court’s judgment entry stated that C.B.G. “entered a written plea
agreement in open court in which he pled guilty to the charge of Felonious Assault (Serious
Physical Harm) and Serious Youth Offender Specification.” The court also stated that “the
juvenile entered a plea of guilty to the charge of Felonious Assault (Serious Physical Harm)
and Serious Youth Offender Specification.” The court further stated that it “ACCEPTS the
juvenile’s plea and FINDS the juvenile guilty of the offense to which said plea was entered.”
Finally, the trial court’s judgment included a statement that the juvenile had been convicted
of felonious assault.
{¶ 5} C.B.G. filed a motion in the trial court seeking to strike all references to the trial
court’s use of the terms “conviction/convicted” and “guilty/guilty plea.” The trial court
overruled the motion.
{¶ 6} C.B.G. appeals.
II. Analysis
{¶ 7} The sole assignment of error asserted by C.B.G. states as follows:
THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY JUVENILE COURT ERRED BY DENYING
C.G.’S MOTION TO STRIKE BECAUSE A CHILD DOES NOT ENTER A
GUILTY PLEA OR RECEIVE A CONVICTION WHEN THE CHILD RECEIVES
A SERIOUS YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DISPOSITION.
{¶ 8} C.B.G. contends the juvenile court erred by denying his motion to strike the
portions of the journal entry in which the court utilized the term “guilty plea” and the word
“conviction” which he argues are improper in the juvenile court setting. In support, he cites
In re J.L., 2021-Ohio-3823 (8th Dist.).
3 {¶ 9} In J.L., the Eighth District addressed the exact issue raised in this appeal.1 The
court ruled that the use of the words “guilty plea” and “conviction” are inappropriate in a
juvenile case, even one with a serious youth offender specification, stating as follows:
Historically, juvenile courts were designed “to provide for the care,
protection, and mental and physical development of children, to protect the
public from wrongful acts committed by juvenile delinquents, and to rehabilitate
errant children and bring them back to productive citizenship.” In re Caldwell,
76 Ohio St.3d 156, 158, 666 N.E.2d 1367 (1996), citing R.C. 2151.01. In
Caldwell, the court emphasized that “[p]unishment is not the goal of the
juvenile system, except as necessary to direct the child toward the goal of
rehabilitation.” Id.
After Caldwell was decided, the Ohio General Assembly enacted R.C.
Chapter 2152.13, Ohio's Serious Youthful Offender statute, which allows the
juvenile court to impose more punitive, adult sanctions than those previously
imposed on youthful offenders. See R.C. 2152.13. R.C. 2152.11(A)
establishes various dispositions for children adjudicated delinquent and states
that a juvenile defendant who commits certain acts is eligible for “a more
restrictive disposition.” The “more restrictive disposition,” known as the SYO
disposition, creates a blended sentence that combines a traditional juvenile
disposition with a stayed adult sentence. R.C. 2152.13. Under this
framework, the adult sentence remains stayed and is never invoked unless the
juvenile fails to successfully complete his or her traditional juvenile disposition.
1 Decided in 2021, J.L. involved what the court noted was “a case of first impression.”Id. at ¶ 11. We have not found, and the parties have not cited, any other case addressing this issue.
4 R.C. 2152.13(D)(2)(a)(iii). Moreover, a juvenile charged as a potential SYO
is not automatically bound over to an adult court. Rather, the case remains in
the juvenile court, whose goals are rehabilitative rather than punitive. In re
D.H., 120 Ohio St.3d 540, 2009-Ohio-9, 901 N.E.2d 209, ¶ 18; State v. Hand,
149 Ohio St.3d 94, 2016-Ohio-5504, 73 N.E.3d 448, ¶ 14.
...
[T]he criminal rules and statutes referenced in R.C. 2152.13 apply to
ensure that the constitutional rights of potential SYOs are protected.
Immediately after stating that these adult criminal provisions apply while the
child is detained and awaiting adjudication, the statute goes on to state that
“[t]he juvenile court shall afford the child all rights afforded a person who is
prosecuted for committing a crime including the right to counsel and the right
to raise the issue of competency.” R.C. 2152.13(C)(2). Moreover,
application of adult criminal rules to potential SYOs does not change the fact
that SYOs remain within the juvenile court's jurisdiction unless or until the
offender fails to complete the juvenile portion of his or her disposition.
“The Ohio Juvenile Rules are designed to keep juvenile dispositions
private.” In re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513, 2012-Ohio-1446, 967 N.E.2d 729,
¶ 66. “Confidentiality promotes rehabilitation by allowing the juvenile to move
into adulthood without the baggage of youthful mistakes.” Id. at ¶ 67.
Although R.C. 2152.13(C)(2) and 2152.13(D)(2)(a)(i) refer to Ohio criminal
rules and statutes, there would be no reason to keep SYO offenders within the
juvenile system if the legislature intended for them to be treated as adults. If
the legislature had wanted SYOs to be treated as adults, it could have required
5 all potential SYOs to be bound over to adult court, but it did not. Although the
SYO statute allows the juvenile court to impose an adult sentence on a
juvenile, the adult sentence remains stayed, and indeed may never be
invoked, if the juvenile successfully completes his or her traditional juvenile
disposition. R.C. 2152.13(D)(2)(a)(iii). Keeping SYOs within the juvenile
court's jurisdiction as long as they successfully complete the juvenile
disposition supports the juvenile court's goals of rehabilitation and correction.
Furthermore, the words “conviction” and “guilty plea” are not mentioned
anywhere in either R.C. 2152.11 or 2152.13, the statutes authorizing the
imposition of an SYO disposition. These statutes refer only to adjudications.
See, e.g., R.C. 2152.11(A) (“A child who is adjudicated a delinquent child for
committing an act that would be felony if committed by an adult is eligible for
a particular type of disposition under this section if the child was not transferred
under 2152.12 of the Revised Code.”); see also R.C. 2152.13(D) (authorizing
the imposition of a mandatory or discretionary SYO sentence if ‘a child is
adjudicated a delinquent child’ under certain circumstances). Felony
convictions may remain on a person's record for the remainder of his or her
life. See R.C. 2953.32 (providing courts discretion to seal records of
convictions). Finding that a juvenile pleaded guilty and was convicted of crime
may have unintended consequences, such as impacting the individual's future
employment or college applications. This is particularly concerning since the
adult portion of the sentence may never be invoked. Such long-term
consequences are contrary to the goals of the juvenile court system.
The term “conviction” only appears in the reverse bindover statute,
6 which requires an adult trial court to transfer a case back to the juvenile court
for disposition if a juvenile, who was transferred to adult court for criminal
prosecution, is ultimately convicted of crimes that would have only subjected
the juvenile to discretionary, rather than mandatory, transfer proceedings. R.C.
2152.121(B)(3)(a); State v. D.B., 150 Ohio St.3d 452, 2017-Ohio-6952, 82
N.E.3d 1162, ¶ 12-13. In that scenario, R.C. 2152.121(B)(3)(a) provides, in
relevant part, that:
the juvenile court shall notify the court in which the child was
convicted of or pleaded guilty to the offense, the sentence
imposed upon the child by that court shall terminate, the court
and all other agencies that have any record of the conviction of
the child or the child's guilty plea shall expunge the conviction or
guilty plea and all records of it, the conviction or guilty plea shall
be considered and treated for all purposes . . . to have never
occurred, and the conviction or guilty plea shall be considered
and treated for all purposes other than as provided in this section
to have been a delinquent child adjudication of the child.
(Emphasis added.) Thus, even when a child is bound over for criminal
prosecution and pleads guilty to offenses in adult court, R.C.
2152.121(B)(3)(a) provides that the record of conviction and guilty plea must
be expunged and treated as if it had never occurred if the child is transferred
back to juvenile court and receives an SYO sentence. If children who have
been bound over to adult court and returned to the juvenile court must have
their convictions and guilty pleas expunged, we can only conclude that the
7 terms “conviction” and “guilty plea” are not permitted in dispositional journal
entries where the child was never bound over for criminal prosecution in the
first place.
Because the SYO disposition is a blended sentence that includes a
suspended prison term, the use of the word “sentence” is appropriate.
However, just because the word “sentence” is used in the SYO context does
not mean the terms “guilty plea” and “conviction” are also appropriate. R.C.
2152.13, which governs the SYO dispositional sentence, repeatedly uses the
word “sentence” but never mentions the words “conviction” or “guilty plea.”
. . . However, the terms “guilty plea” and “conviction” are not appropriate in
an SYO dispositional journal entry. For the reasons previously explained, a
child in the juvenile court does not plead guilty and is not convicted of a crime
when the child admits he committed acts that would constitute felonies if
committed by an adult, even when he receives an SYO blended sentence.
(Footnote omitted.) Id. at ¶ 9-10, 12-17.
{¶ 10} We agree with the reasoning and the holding of the Eighth District. As such,
we conclude that the trial court erred by utilizing the words, and any variations thereof,
“conviction,” and “guilty plea” in the juvenile court’s judgment entry.
{¶ 11} The sole assignment of error is sustained.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 12} The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this matter is remanded for
further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
.............
LEWIS, P.J., and HUFFMAN, J., concur.