In re C.B.

Summary

The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of C.B.’s motion to vacate his juvenile delinquency adjudications and related claims. The court held that In re D.B.’s constitutional reasoning concerning statutory rape under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) did not apply to C.B.’s rape adjudications under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c), and that his ineffective-assistance claim lacked merit. The court also found any error in considering the State’s untimely response harmless and declined to review arguments concerning the Juv.R. 29(D) colloquy because no timely appeal was taken from the earlier order denying withdrawal of admissions.

Holdings

1. The substance of a motion, rather than its caption, determines how it should be treated; a motion to vacate filed after the time for direct appeal, asserting a constitutional violation, seeking to void a voidable judgment, and requesting vacation of the judgment and sentence may be recast as a petition for postconviction relief.
2. In re D.B.'s holding that R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) is unconstitutional as applied to a child under thirteen who engages in sexual conduct with another child under thirteen does not extend to C.B.'s convictions under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c).
3. C.B. failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel's failure to raise an argument that lacked merit was not deficient performance, and C.B. could not show prejudice.
4. Even assuming the trial court erred by considering the State's response filed after the deadline, any error was harmless because C.B. failed to show prejudice.
5. The Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review issues decided in the trial court's November 25, 2024 judgment denying C.B.'s motion to withdraw because C.B. did not timely appeal that judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by considering the State's response filed after the court-ordered deadline.
2. Whether C.B.'s rape adjudications were void under In re D.B. because the charges were unconstitutional as applied to a child under thirteen.
3. Whether C.B. established ineffective assistance of counsel or another basis for postconviction relief.
4. Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the challenge to the denial of C.B.'s 2024 motion to withdraw his admissions when no timely appeal was taken from that judgment.

Disposition

affirmed