FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Wednesday, October 9, 2024
CAPTION: STATE V. WALLACE
APPEAL NOS.: C-220509C-220510
TRIAL NOS.: B-1902817B-1906386
KEY WORDS: WAIVER – COMPETENCY – RIGHT TO COUNSEL – SELF-REPRESENTATION – CRIM.R. 44
SUMMARY:The trial court erred by failing to engage in the necessary colloquy pursuant to Crim.R. 44 to determine whether defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, where the necessity of the colloquy was heightened by concerns surrounding defendant’s competency to stand trial.
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, J.; ZAYAS, P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE: J.S. AND F.W.
APPEAL NO.: C-240116
TRIAL NO.: F21-127X
KEY WORDS: LEGAL CUSTODY — R.C. 2151.415(D)(3) — R.C. 2151.415(A)(3) — BEST INTEREST
SUMMARY: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding legal custody to maternal grandparents under R.C. 2151.415(D)(3) and (A)(3) where the juvenile court appropriately considered the best-interest factors in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) and the juvenile court’s best-interest findings were supported by competent and credible evidence in the record, and the juvenile court’s decision was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. [But see DISSENT: The practice of removing children from a parent-victim of domestic violence raises substantive due-process and policy concerns, and the juvenile court abused its discretion in awarding legal custody to maternal grandparents absent a sufficient finding that removing the children from a parent-victim was in their best interest.]
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, J.; BOCK, P.J., CONCURS and KINSLEY, J., DISSENTS
CAPTION: IN RE: L.D. AND B.D.
APPEAL NO.: C-240401
TRIAL NO.: F19-221Z
KEY WORDS: PARENTAL TERMINATION – PERMANENT CUSTODY
SUMMARY: In father’s appeal from the juvenile court’s decision terminating his parental rights and awarding permanent custody of his children to a children’s services agency, the juvenile court’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence: the children had been in the custody of the agency for more than 12 months of a consecutive 22-month period, and father had a history of drug-related crimes and father abandoned the children.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by WINKLER, J.; BERGERON, P.J., and CROUSE, J., CONCUR.