In re S.D.

2023 Ohio 3039

Opinion

[Cite as In re S.D., 2023-Ohio-3039.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN RE: S.D. : APPEAL NOS. C-220603 C-220604 : C-220605 C-220606 : TRIAL NOS. 19-5152X 19-5153X : 19-5154X 19-5155X :

: O P I N I O N.

Appeals From: Hamilton County Juvenile Court

Judgments Appealed From Are: Vacated

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: August 30, 2023

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Ohio,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Jessica Moss, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant S.D. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

WINKLER, Judge. {¶1} S.D. has appealed the judgments of the juvenile court classifying him,

by nunc pro tunc entries, as a Tier II juvenile offender registrant under Ohio’s version

of the Adam Walsh Act. We vacate the judgments of the juvenile court imposing the

Tier II classification, because we hold that the juvenile court had no jurisdiction to

enter nunc pro tunc orders classifying S.D. after S.D. had turned 21, had completed his

journalized disposition, and had been released.

I. Procedural Background

{¶2} S.D. was adjudicated delinquent for conduct that, if committed by an

adult, would have constituted rape and importuning. S.D. admitted to the charges,

which had also been presented to the grand jury in serious-youthful-offender (“SYO”)

proceedings. He was committed to the Department of Youth Services (“DYS”) for a

minimum of 36 months and a maximum not to exceed his 21st birthday. S.D. appealed

his SYO sentence, which this court affirmed. On October 6, 2022, the state filed a

motion to invoke the adult portion of the dispositional sentence. On October 27 and

October 31, 2022, the juvenile court held a hearing on the state’s motion as well as a

juvenile-sex-offender-registration (“JSOR”) hearing. On the record at the October 31

hearing, the state and S.D. agreed that he would be classified as a Tier II juvenile

offender registrant. The juvenile court informed S.D. on the record of his registration

duties. The court noted on the record that the JSOR hearing had to take place before

S.D. turned 21 on November 1, 2022. Once S.D. turned 21, the initial classification

could not take place.

{¶3} On October 31, 2022, the juvenile court issued an order denying the

state’s motion to invoke the adult portion of S.D.’s sentence. It is clear from the

2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

transcript of the hearing that in denying the state’s motion, the juvenile court took into

consideration S.D.’s agreement to be classified as a Tier II juvenile offender registrant.

The court’s October 31, 2022 order did not mention any tier classification. It only

denied the state’s motion and ordered S.D. to be transferred back to DYS and then to

be transported to the Hamilton County Justice Center by noon on November 1, 2022.

The original explanation of duties to register was filed on October 31, 2022, in the case

numbered 19-5155X (the appeal numbered C-220606), one of the importuning cases.

{¶4} On November 1, 2022, S.D.’s 21st birthday, the juvenile court issued an

“Addendum to 10/31/2022 Judicial Entry” that stated that S.D. would be transported

to the Justice Center “pending civil release” on that day to a civilian for transport to

his residence in Kentucky.

{¶5} On November 2, 2022, the juvenile court journalized in each case a

“Further addendum nunc pro tunc to 10/31/2022” that stated that the state and S.D.

had agreed to a Tier II classification and that S.D. was classified as a “Tier II sex

offender.” The court’s order stated that it had “reviewed and signed the JSOR form

with SD during the hearing on 10/31/2022.” A copy of the explanation of duties to

register, which had been signed by S.D. and the juvenile court judge on October 31,

2022, was attached to the nunc pro tunc “addendum.” The court’s order was

journalized in the rape case numbered 19-5152X (the appeal numbered C-220603), at

1:41 p.m. on November 2, 2022.

{¶6} On November 2, 2022, the state filed in this court requests to appeal the

juvenile court’s decision denying its motion to invoke the adult portion of S.D.’s

sentence. Those requests for leave were filed between 1:41 p.m. and 2:01 p.m.

Subsequently on November 2, 2022, between 3:06 p.m. and 3:07 p.m., the juvenile

court journalized nunc pro tunc orders classifying S.D. as a Tier II juvenile offender

registrant in the remaining three cases. This court denied the state’s requests for leave

3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

to appeal on December 5, 2022. We held that the appeals would be futile because we

could not grant the state any relief as S.D. had turned 21 on November 1, 2022, and

the juvenile court therefore had no jurisdiction to impose the adult portion of the

sentence.

{¶7} On November 29, 2022, S.D. appealed the juvenile court’s entries

classifying him as a Tier II juvenile offender registrant.

II. Analysis

{¶8} S.D. raises one assignment of error, which states that the juvenile court

erred in imposing an initial Tier II classification on him through nunc pro tunc entries

that were filed after S.D. had turned 21. S.D. argues that the juvenile court had no

jurisdiction to impose an initial tier classification on him after he had turned 21. He

also argues that the November 2, 2022 nunc pro tunc entries were not valid

classification orders because they were not entered at the time of S.D.’s release from a

secured facility, they were entered after S.D. turned 21, and they were entered after

S.D. had completed his disposition and had been released. The state argues that S.D.

agreed to the Tier II classification before he turned 21, and the juvenile court took that

into consideration when refusing to invoke the adult portion of the sentence. The state

also argues that the nunc pro tunc entries were proper to correct the record to reflect

what had occurred at the hearing.

{¶9} Tier classification of juveniles under the Adam Walsh Act is punitive. In

re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513, 2012-Ohio-1446, 967 N.E.2d 729, ¶ 11; In re T.R., 1st Dist.

Hamilton Nos. C-190165, C-190166, C-190167, C-190168, C-190169, C-190170, C-

190171 and C-190172, 2020-Ohio-4445, ¶ 10.

{¶10} R.C. 2152.02(C)(6) states, “The juvenile court has jurisdiction over a

person who is adjudicated a delinquent child or juvenile traffic offender prior to

attaining eighteen years of age until the person attains twenty-one years of age.” “The

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

language is straightforward. It states that juvenile courts have jurisdiction over

adjudicated delinquents until they are 21 years old. The obvious flip side of that

statement is that juvenile courts do not have jurisdiction over adjudicated delinquents

once they are 21 years old.” In re J.V., 134 Ohio St.3d 1, 2012-Ohio-4961, 979 N.E.2d

1203, ¶ 23.

{¶11} In In re J.V., J.V. was initially sentenced on June 17, 2005, when he was

17 years old. He received a blended sentence. The juvenile court failed to notify him

about postrelease control and did not include postrealease control in its judgment

entry. The Eighth District reversed, holding that the sentencing entry did not reflect

the length of the sentence. J.V. was resentenced on January 5, 2007, when he was 18,

and the juvenile court again failed to correctly impose postrelease control. J.V. did not

appeal. On February 20, 2009, when J.V. was 20, the juvenile court imposed the adult

portion of the sentence. The court again did not correctly impose postrelease control.

On appeal, the Eighth District again reversed and remanded for resentencing. By this

time, J.V. had turned 21. The juvenile court held a de novo sentencing hearing to

correct the original juvenile disposition, which did not mention postrelease control.

The Supreme Court held that the juvenile court had no jurisdiction to impose criminal

punishment, including postrelease control, after J.V. had turned 21, and that the

disposition entered after J.V. had turned 21 was void.

{¶12} In S.D.’s case, the juvenile court classified him as a Tier II offender and

notified him on the record about his registration duties but failed to enter an order to

that effect before S.D. turned 21 and before he completed his journalized disposition

and was released.

{¶13} In re J.V. was cited by the Fourth District in In re C.W., 2013-Ohio-

2483, 991 N.E.2d 1167 (4th Dist.). C.W. was adjudicated delinquent for rape in June

of 2005. In 2008, he was classified as a Tier III juvenile offender registrant. That

5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

classification was vacated, and in March of 2010, he was again classified as a Tier III

offender. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause because

the juvenile court had failed to appoint a guardian ad litem. On remand, C.W. was

classified as a Tier I offender and he appealed. C.W. argued that the juvenile court had

erred in applying the Adam Walsh Act to him because he was a Megan’s Law offender,

and that because he had turned 21, the juvenile court had no jurisdiction to reclassify

him. The Fourth District held that the juvenile court had erred in classifying him

under the Adam Walsh Act and that classification was void, but that he could no longer

be classified because he had turned 21 and the juvenile court had lost jurisdiction over

him, even though the juvenile court had held the initial and subsequent classification

hearings before C.W. had turned 21. The juvenile court had no authority on remand

to issue an order that corrected its mistake in the previous classification.

{¶14} In State ex rel. Jean-Baptiste v. Kirsch, 134 Ohio St.3d 421, 2012-Ohio-

5697, 983 N.E.2d 302, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the juvenile court lacked

statutory authority to conduct an initial juvenile-offender-registration hearing after

the juvenile had fully satisfied the court’s delinquency adjudication and had turned 21.

The court stated that the juvenile court “patently and unambiguously” lacked

jurisdiction to classify Jean-Baptiste once his juvenile disposition had been fully

satisfied. The court stated,

Because the juvenile court lacks statutory authority to classify Jean-

Baptiste after he was released and the court’s delinquency adjudication

has been fully satisfied, we agree with Jean-Baptiste’s first proposition

of law as applied to this case and hold that the juvenile court lacks

jurisdiction to classify Jean-Baptiste who is now no longer a “child”

under the applicable statute.

6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

Id. at ¶ 32.1 The Supreme Court noted that Jean-Baptiste was “in accord” with its

decision in In re Cross, 96 Ohio St.3d 328, 2002-Ohio-4183, 774 N.E.2d 258, in which

the court held that the juvenile court had no jurisdiction to reimpose a suspended

commitment to a DYS facility after the juvenile had been released from probation,

because “the completion of probation signals the end of the court’s jurisdiction over a

delinquent juvenile.” In re Cross at ¶ 28. “When the court ended Cross’s probation, it

ended its ability to make further dispositions as to Cross on that delinquency count.”

Id.

{¶15} In S.D.’s case, S.D. had turned 21, had fully satisfied his juvenile

disposition, and had been released before the juvenile court journalized the nunc pro

tunc entries classifying him as a Tier II juvenile offender registrant.

{¶16} The Fifth District applied Jean-Baptiste in In re J.B., 5th Dist. Monroe

No. 15 CA 0002, 2016-Ohio-98. The Fifth District held that the juvenile court had no

jurisdiction to classify the juvenile offender as a Tier III sex offender because on the

date that the classification hearing had been held J.B. had turned 21.

{¶17} The Ohio Supreme Court held, in In re A.W., 160 Ohio St.3d 183, 2020-

Ohio-1457, 155 N.E.3d 819, that the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction

when it entered the adult portion of the sentence where the juvenile court’s order was

not journalized until after the juvenile had turned 21. The juvenile court had a hearing

on the state’s motion to invoke the adult portion of the sentence on May 22, 2017, one

day before A.W. turned 21. The court terminated the juvenile disposition and invoked

the adult sentence on May 22, 2017. But the order was not journalized until May 23,

2017, A.W.’s 21st birthday. The Supreme Court held that because the clerk did not

1 In In re R.B., 162 Ohio St.3d 281, 2020-Ohio-5476, 165 N.E.3d 288, the Ohio Supreme Court held that where the initial classification had occurred before the juvenile turned 21, the juvenile’s turning 21 did not divest the juvenile court of continuing jurisdiction over the classification. The R.B. court distinguished Jean-Baptiste noting that Jean-Baptiste involved an initial classification, just as in S.D.’s case.

7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

journalize the entry invoking the adult portion of the sentence until after A.W. had

turned 21, the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over him and the order

invoking the adult portion of the sentence was void.

{¶18} In the instant case, the nunc pro tunc orders classifying S.D. were

journalized after he had turned 21.

{¶19} In State v. Halsey, 2016-Ohio-7990, 74 N.E.3d 915 (12th Dist.), an adult

criminal case, the Twelfth District held that where the Tier III sex-offender

classification had been omitted from the sentencing entry, the classification was void

and could not be corrected after the defendant had completed his journalized sentence

even though the defendant had been properly notified of the Tier III classification at

sentencing. Halsey had been advised at the sentencing hearing that he would be

classified as a Tier III sex offender and had been notified of his duties to register. He

signed an “Explanation of Duties to Register” and was provided a copy of it. The

journalized sentencing entry did not contain the Tier III classification. The Twelfth

District stated that for a sanction to commence it first had to be imposed. “A sanction

is imposed by the sentencing entry, not by what is said on the record during the

sentencing hearing.” Halsey at ¶ 26. Because the trial court had never imposed the

classification, even though he had been notified at the sentencing hearing of the Tier

III classification, Halsey had never been subject to the classification, and it could not

be corrected by a nunc pro tunc entry after he had completed his journalized sentence.

{¶20} A court speaks only through its journal. In re A.W., 160 Ohio St.3d 183,

2020-Ohio-1457, 155 N.E.3d 819, at ¶ 8; In re D.J., 2018-Ohio-569, 106 N.E.3d 834, ¶

23 (9th Dist.); State v. Merritt, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-170649, 2018-Ohio-4995. A

sanction is imposed by the sentencing entry and not by what is said at the sentencing

hearing. Halsey at ¶ 26; Merritt at ¶ 2. The inclusion of the tier classification in the

8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

sentencing entry is mandatory. Id.; State v. Hildebrand, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-

150046, 2018-Ohio-2962, ¶ 6.

{¶21} Here, the juvenile court did not enter the nunc pro tunc orders

classifying S.D. until after he had turned 21. S.D. turned 21 and was released on

November 1, 2022, and the court’s orders were journalized on November 2, 2022. At

that point, the court had lost jurisdiction over S.D. because he had turned 21, had

completed his disposition, and had been released. The juvenile court’s original orders

did not impose the Tier II classification, even though the transcript of proceedings

shows that at the sentencing hearing the court classified S.D. as a Tier II offender and

notified him of his registration duties. Therefore, the classification had never been

properly imposed. S.D. turned 21 and completed his journalized disposition so the

classification cannot be corrected by nunc pro tunc orders. The court had no

jurisdiction to enter the nunc pro tunc orders classifying S.D. after he had turned 21,

completed his journalized disposition, and been released.

{¶22} S.D. also argues that the juvenile court lost jurisdiction to enter the

November 2, 2022 orders because the state had filed requests for leave to appeal and

the orders were not in aid of those appeals. Because we have held that the juvenile

court had no jurisdiction to enter the nunc pro tunc orders after S.D. had turned 21,

completed his journalized disposition, and been released, this argument is moot, and

we decline to address it.

{¶23} The assignment of error is sustained. The juvenile court’s nunc pro tunc

orders classifying S.D. as a Tier II juvenile offender registrant are hereby vacated.

Judgments vacated.

CROUSE, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., concur.

Please note: The court has recorded its own entry this date.