State v. Morrell
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
Hon. Robert G. Montgomery, J.
-vs-
YHANTEG MORRELL Case No. CT2025-0017 Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
CR2024-0360
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 14, 2025 APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
RON WELCH, ESQ. CHRIS BRIGDON Muskingum County Prosecuting Attorney 8138 Somerset Road Thornville, Ohio 43076
JOSEPH A. PALMER Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 27 North Fifth Street P.O. Box 189 Zanesville, Ohio 43702
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Yhanteg Morrell appeals the judgment entered by the
Muskingum County Common Pleas Court convicting him following his pleas of guilty to endangering children (R.C. 2919.22(B)(1)) and domestic violence (R.C. 2929.25(A)), and sentencing him to a term of incarceration of six to nine years. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On June 6, 2024, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted Appellant with attempted abduction, two counts of gross sexual imposition, kidnapping with a sexual motivation specification, importuning, and three counts of domestic violence. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, the State amended the charge of kidnapping to endangering children and dismissed the sexual motivation specification. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the amended charge of endangering children, and entered a plea of guilty to one count of domestic violence. The State dismissed the remaining charges. The victims of the offenses were the minor children of Appellant’s girlfriend.
{¶3} At the plea hearing, the State set forth the facts of the offenses. As to endangering children, the State represented in September of 2023, one of the minor children reported Appellant “had abused her under R.C. 2929.22(B)(1), and that his actions constituted abuse as inappropriate behavior with her.” Plea Tr. 15. As to the charge of domestic violence, the other minor child of Appellant’s girlfriend reported Appellant abused her physically, causing bruising, from February of 2020, through September of 2023.
{¶4} The trial court convicted Appellant upon his guilty pleas, and the case proceeded to sentencing. The State argued prison time was mandatory based on
Appellant’s prior juvenile adjudication of aggravated robbery with a Serious Youthful Offender (hereinafter “SYO”) specification. Appellant argued the juvenile adjudication could not be used to enhance prison time based on the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Hand, 2016-Ohio-5504. The trial court found prison time was mandatory based on the prior adjudication with an SYO specification. The trial court sentenced Appellant to a term of six to nine years of incarceration for endangering children and 180 days incarceration for domestic violence, to be served concurrently, for an aggregate term of incarceration of six to nine years. It is from the February 5, 2025 judgment of the trial court Appellant prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT APPELLANT’S PRIOR JUVENILE ADJUDICATION QUALIFIED AS A PRIOR CONVICTION THAT TRIGGERED MANDATORY PRISON TIME UNDER OHIO SENTENCING LAW, IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AS RECOGNIZED IN STATE V. HAND.
{¶5} Appellant argues the trial court could not use his prior juvenile adjudication of aggravated robbery to trigger the imposition of mandatory prison time in the instant case, based on the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Hand, 2016-Ohio-5504.
{¶6} In Hand, the trial court held the defendant’s prior juvenile adjudication for aggravated robbery required the imposition of mandatory prison time in his later adult case. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court. However, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed, finding the statute allowing a juvenile adjudication to be used to mandate prison time in a later adult case was unconstitutional:
Treating a juvenile adjudication as an adult conviction to enhance a sentence for a later crime is inconsistent with Ohio's system for juveniles, which is predicated on the fact that children are not as culpable for their acts as adults and should be rehabilitated rather than punished. It is widely recognized that juveniles are more vulnerable to outside pressures, including the pressure to admit to an offense. Under Apprendi, using a prior conviction to enhance a sentence does not violate the constitutional right to due process, because the prior process involved the right to a jury trial.
Juveniles, however, are not afforded the right to a jury trial. Quite simply, a juvenile adjudication is not a conviction of a crime and should not be treated as one.
{¶7} State v. Hand, 2016-Ohio-5504, ¶ 38.
{¶8} The State argues the instant case is distinguishable from Hand because Appellant’s juvenile adjudication included a SYO specification. In its brief, the State's response merely “requests this Court carefully read that entire statute especially R.C. 2152.13(C)(1),” without setting forth the pertinent language of the statute or explaining its applicability to this instant case. R.C. 2152.13(C)(1) provides in pertinent part:
(C)(1) A child for whom a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence is sought by a prosecuting attorney has the right to a grand jury determination of probable cause that the child committed the act charged and that the child is eligible by age for a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence. The grand jury may be impaneled by the court of common pleas or the juvenile court.
Once a child is indicted, or charged by information or the juvenile court determines that the child is eligible for a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence, the child is entitled to an open and speedy trial by jury in juvenile court and to be provided with a transcript of the proceedings.
{¶9} Therefore, unlike the defendant in Hand, Appellant did have a right to jury trial in his juvenile case as a result of the SYO specification. However, the Supreme Court in Hand did not rest its decision solely on the right of a juvenile to a jury trial. The court also noted a juvenile delinquency adjudication is not a criminal conviction and should not be treated as one, because it is predicated on the fact children are not as culpable for their acts as adults. Hand, 2016-Ohio-5504 at ¶ 38. A case including an SYO specification remains a juvenile court proceeding, despite the additional right to a jury trial given to a juvenile faced with the possibility of an adult sentence at a later point:
A juvenile charged as a potential serious youthful offender does not face bindover to an adult court; the case remains in the juvenile court. Under R.C. 2152.11(A), a juvenile defendant who commits certain acts is eligible for “a more restrictive disposition.” That “more restricted disposition” is a “serious youthful offender” disposition and includes what is known as a blended sentence—a traditional juvenile disposition coupled with the imposition of a stayed adult sentence. R.C. 2152.13. The adult sentence remains stayed unless the juvenile fails to successfully complete his or her traditional juvenile disposition. R.C. 2152.13(D)(2)(a)(iii). Theoretically, the threat of the imposition of an adult sentence encourages a juvenile's cooperation in his own rehabilitation, functioning as both carrot and stick.
…
The statutory scheme establishes that a juvenile subject to serious-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2025 Ohio 2878 (State v. Morrell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.