Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2152
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13 (2026)

Serious youthful dispositional sentence and serious youthful offender dispositional sentence

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
September 30, 2011
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 86 - 129th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) A juvenile court shall impose a serious youthful dispositional sentence on a child when required under division (B)(3) of section 2152.121 of the Revised Code. In such a case, the remaining provisions of this division and divisions (B) and (C) do not apply to the child, and the court shall impose the mandatory serious youthful dispositional sentence under division (D)(1) of this section.

In all other cases, a juvenile court may impose a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence on a child only if the prosecuting attorney of the county in which the delinquent act allegedly occurred initiates the process against the child in accordance with this division, and the child is an alleged delinquent child who is eligible for the dispositional sentence. The prosecuting attorney may initiate the process in any of the following ways:

(1) Obtaining an indictment of the child as a serious youthful offender;

(2) The child waives the right to indictment, charging the child in a bill of information as a serious youthful offender;

(3) Until an indictment or information is obtained, requesting a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence in the original complaint alleging that the child is a delinquent child;

(4) Until an indictment or information is obtained, if the original complaint does not request a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence, filing with the juvenile court a written notice of intent to seek a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence within twenty days after the later of the following, unless the time is extended by the juvenile court for good cause shown:

(a) The date of the child's first juvenile court hearing regarding the complaint;

(b) The date the juvenile court determines not to transfer the case under section 2152.12 of the Revised Code.

After a written notice is filed under division (A)(4) of this section, the juvenile court shall serve a copy of the notice on the child and advise the child of the prosecuting attorney's intent to seek a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence in the case.

(B) If an alleged delinquent child is not indicted or charged by information as described in division (A)(1) or (2) of this section and if a notice or complaint as described in division (A)(3) or (4) of this section indicates that the prosecuting attorney intends to pursue a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence in the case, the juvenile court shall hold a preliminary hearing to determine if there is probable cause that the child committed the act charged and is by age eligible for, or required to receive, a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence.

(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. The time within which the trial is to be held under Title XXIX of the Revised Code commences on whichever of the following dates is applicable:

(a) If the child is indicted or charged by information, on the date of the filing of the indictment or information.

(b) If the child is charged by an original complaint that requests a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence, on the date of the filing of the complaint.

(c) If the child is not charged by an original complaint that requests a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence, on the date that the prosecuting attorney files the written notice of intent to seek a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence.

(2) If the child is detained awaiting adjudication, upon indictment or being charged by information, the child has the same right to bail as an adult charged with the offense the alleged delinquent act would be if committed by an adult. Except as provided in division (D) of section 2152.14 of the Revised Code, all provisions of Title XXIX of the Revised Code and the Criminal Rules shall apply in the case and to the child. The 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. The child may not waive the right to counsel.

(D)(1) If a child is adjudicated a delinquent child for committing an act under circumstances that require the juvenile court to impose upon the child a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence under section 2152.11 of the Revised Code, all of the following apply:

(a) The juvenile court shall impose upon the child a sentence available for the violation, as if the child were an adult, under Chapter 2929. of the Revised Code, except that the juvenile court shall not impose on the child a sentence of death or life imprisonment without parole.

(b) The juvenile court also shall impose upon the child one or more traditional juvenile dispositions under sections 2152.16, 2152.19, and 2152.20, and, if applicable, section 2152.17 of the Revised Code.

(c) The juvenile court shall stay the adult portion of the serious youthful offender dispositional sentence pending the successful completion of the traditional juvenile dispositions imposed.

(2)(a) If a child is adjudicated a delinquent child for committing an act under circumstances that allow, but do not require, the juvenile court to impose on the child a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence under section 2152.11 of the Revised Code, all of the following apply:

(i) If the juvenile court on the record makes a finding that, given the nature and circumstances of the violation and the history of the child, the length of time, level of security, and types of programming and resources available in the juvenile system alone are not adequate to provide the juvenile court with a reasonable expectation that the purposes set forth in section 2152.01 of the Revised Code will be met, the juvenile court may impose upon the child a sentence available for the violation, as if the child were an adult, under Chapter 2929. of the Revised Code, except that the juvenile court shall not impose on the child a sentence of death or life imprisonment without parole.

(ii) If a sentence is imposed under division (D)(2)(a)(i) of this section, the juvenile court also shall impose upon the child one or more traditional juvenile dispositions under sections 2152.16, 2152.19, and 2152.20 and, if applicable, section 2152.17 of the Revised Code.

(iii) The juvenile court shall stay the adult portion of the serious youthful offender dispositional sentence pending the successful completion of the traditional juvenile dispositions imposed.

(b) If the juvenile court does not find that a sentence should be imposed under division (D)(2)(a)(i) of this section, the juvenile court may impose one or more traditional juvenile dispositions under sections 2152.16, 2152.19, 2152.20, and, if applicable, section 2152.17 of the Revised Code.

(3) A child upon whom a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence is imposed under division (D)(1) or (2) of this section has a right to appeal under division (A)(1), (3), (4), or (5) of section 2953.08 of the Revised Code the adult portion of the serious youthful offender dispositional sentence when any of those divisions apply. The child may appeal the adult portion, and the court shall consider the appeal as if the adult portion were not stayed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: In re C.P., 2012 Ohio 1446 (Ohio 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re C.P., 2012 Ohio 1446 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 17× “86, PRQJOR status is assigned to juveniles who (1) were 14 through 17 years old when the offense was committed, (2) have been adjudicated a delinquent child for committing certain specified sexually oriented offenses, including rape, gross sexual imposition when the victim is…”
State v. D.H., 901 N.E.2d 209 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 20× “11(A)(2) and (F)(2) and R.C. 2152.13. {¶ 4} Because of D.H.’s age and the nature of his crime, the imposition of the adult portion of the sentence was discretionary, rather than mandatory.”
In Re D.S., 2016 Ohio 1027 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 10× “The statute governing SYO sentences, R.C. 2152.13, carries a number of procedural protections, including the right to a grand jury determination of probable cause as well as an open and speedy trial by jury.”
In re J.P., 2022 Ohio 539 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 27× “021 or R.C. 2152.13 prohibits a prosecutor from initiating serious youthful offender proceedings via an indictment when a complaint has previously been filed.”
State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 8278 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 4× “02(C)(5) provides a limited exception to this rule for “any person who is adjudicated a delinquent child for the commission of an act, who has a serious youthful offender dispositional sentence imposed for the act pursuant to section 2152.13 of the Revised Code, and whose adult…”
In re J.V., 2012 Ohio 4961 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 6× “222, 148 Ohio Laws, Part V, 10900. {¶ 36} Against this backdrop, the General Assembly enacted S.”
In re K.A., 2018 Ohio 4599 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 25× “1 The state argues that the juvenile court erred in its interpretation of R.C. 2152.13 and its subsequent dismissal of the complaint as untimely.”
In re J.G., 2021 Ohio 1624 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 9× “R.C. 2152.13. The adult sentence remains stayed unless the juvenile fails to successfully complete his or her traditional juvenile disposition.”
In re E.S., 2020 Ohio 1029 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 21× “Our precedent and the language of R.C. 2152.13 makes clear that this process is insufficient and inconsistent with the law.”
Bucio v. Sutherland, 674 F. Supp. 2d 882 (S.D. Ohio 2009). · cites it 25× “The juvenile court violated R.C. 2152.13, and Jorge Bucio’s right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution when it overruled the defense motion to dismiss the indictment.”
State v. Stidam, 2016 Ohio 7906 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “’ 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.”
In re J.S., 2013 Ohio 1721 (Ohio 2013). · cites it 6× “This case, involving as it does a serious- youthful-offender (“SYO”) sentence under R.C. 2152.13, is one of public or great general interest.”
Show all 68 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(A) — 5 cases
In re J.P., 2022 Ohio 539 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “021 or R.C. 2152.13 prohibits a prosecutor from initiating serious youthful offender proceedings via an indictment when a complaint has previously been filed.”
State v. Cunningham, 2022 Ohio 3497 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
Bucio v. Sutherland, 674 F. Supp. 2d 882 (S.D. Ohio 2009). “The juvenile court violated R.C. 2152.13, and Jorge Bucio’s right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution when it overruled the defense motion to dismiss the indictment.”
State v. L.A.B., 2021 Ohio 4323 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
In re D.S., 2022 Ohio 2408 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(A)(1) — 5 cases
In re J.P., 2022 Ohio 539 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “021 or R.C. 2152.13 prohibits a prosecutor from initiating serious youthful offender proceedings via an indictment when a complaint has previously been filed.”
State v. Cunningham, 2022 Ohio 3497 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
In re K.A., 2018 Ohio 4599 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “1 The state argues that the juvenile court erred in its interpretation of R.C. 2152.13 and its subsequent dismissal of the complaint as untimely.”
In re R.G., 2018 Ohio 4517 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Kimbrough, 2020 Ohio 3175 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(A)(3) — 3 cases
In re K.A., 2018 Ohio 4599 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “1 The state argues that the juvenile court erred in its interpretation of R.C. 2152.13 and its subsequent dismissal of the complaint as untimely.”
In re J.P., 2022 Ohio 539 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “021 or R.C. 2152.13 prohibits a prosecutor from initiating serious youthful offender proceedings via an indictment when a complaint has previously been filed.”
In re M.H., 2024 Ohio 1062 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(A)(4) — 8 cases
In re J.P., 2022 Ohio 539 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “021 or R.C. 2152.13 prohibits a prosecutor from initiating serious youthful offender proceedings via an indictment when a complaint has previously been filed.”
In re K.A., 2018 Ohio 4599 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “1 The state argues that the juvenile court erred in its interpretation of R.C. 2152.13 and its subsequent dismissal of the complaint as untimely.”
In re E.S., 2020 Ohio 1029 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Our precedent and the language of R.C. 2152.13 makes clear that this process is insufficient and inconsistent with the law.”
In re R.G., 2018 Ohio 4517 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
In re D.S., 2021 Ohio 2516 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(A)(4)(a) — 1 case
In re D.S., 2022 Ohio 2408 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(A)(4)(b) — 4 cases
In re C.P., 2012 Ohio 1446 (Ohio 2012). “86, PRQJOR status is assigned to juveniles who (1) were 14 through 17 years old when the offense was committed, (2) have been adjudicated a delinquent child for committing certain specified sexually oriented offenses, including rape, gross sexual imposition when the victim is…”
State v. Stidam, 2016 Ohio 7906 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “’ 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.”
In re K.A., 2018 Ohio 4599 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “1 The state argues that the juvenile court erred in its interpretation of R.C. 2152.13 and its subsequent dismissal of the complaint as untimely.”
In re D.S., 2021 Ohio 2516 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(B) — 4 cases
In re K.A., 2018 Ohio 4599 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “1 The state argues that the juvenile court erred in its interpretation of R.C. 2152.13 and its subsequent dismissal of the complaint as untimely.”
In re E.S., 2020 Ohio 1029 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Our precedent and the language of R.C. 2152.13 makes clear that this process is insufficient and inconsistent with the law.”
In re R.G., 2018 Ohio 4517 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Kimbrough, 2020 Ohio 3175 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(C)(1) — 12 cases
In Re D.S., 2016 Ohio 1027 (Ohio 2016). “The statute governing SYO sentences, R.C. 2152.13, carries a number of procedural protections, including the right to a grand jury determination of probable cause as well as an open and speedy trial by jury.”
State v. D.H., 901 N.E.2d 209 (Ohio 2009). “11(A)(2) and (F)(2) and R.C. 2152.13. {¶ 4} Because of D.H.’s age and the nature of his crime, the imposition of the adult portion of the sentence was discretionary, rather than mandatory.”
In re E.S., 2020 Ohio 1029 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Our precedent and the language of R.C. 2152.13 makes clear that this process is insufficient and inconsistent with the law.”
In re J.P., 2022 Ohio 539 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “021 or R.C. 2152.13 prohibits a prosecutor from initiating serious youthful offender proceedings via an indictment when a complaint has previously been filed.”
Bucio v. Sutherland, 674 F. Supp. 2d 882 (S.D. Ohio 2009). “The juvenile court violated R.C. 2152.13, and Jorge Bucio’s right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution when it overruled the defense motion to dismiss the indictment.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(C)(1)(c) — 4 cases
In re D.S., 2012 Ohio 2213 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
In re E.S., 2020 Ohio 1029 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “Our precedent and the language of R.C. 2152.13 makes clear that this process is insufficient and inconsistent with the law.”
In re R.G., 2018 Ohio 4517 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
In re D.S., 2022 Ohio 2408 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(C)(2) — 5 cases
In Re D.S., 2016 Ohio 1027 (Ohio 2016). “The statute governing SYO sentences, R.C. 2152.13, carries a number of procedural protections, including the right to a grand jury determination of probable cause as well as an open and speedy trial by jury.”
In re D.S., 2012 Ohio 2213 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
In re J.R., 2025 Ohio 2271 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
In re J.L., 2021 Ohio 3823 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
In re C.B.G., 2026 Ohio 950 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(D) — 6 cases
State v. Nicholas, 2022 Ohio 4276 (Ohio 2022).
State v. Warren, 118 Ohio St. 3d 200 (Ohio 2008).
In re J.R., 2025 Ohio 2271 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
In re D.S., 2011 Ohio 5250 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
In re J.L., 2021 Ohio 3823 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(D)(1) — 2 cases
Bucio v. Sutherland, 674 F. Supp. 2d 882 (S.D. Ohio 2009). “The juvenile court violated R.C. 2152.13, and Jorge Bucio’s right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution when it overruled the defense motion to dismiss the indictment.”
State v. Harden, 2022 Ohio 1436 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(D)(1)(a) — 6 cases
In re D.J., 2018 Ohio 569 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
In re N.S., 2017 Ohio 163 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Feaster, 2011 Ohio 4222 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
In re P.C., 2020 Ohio 6791 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
State v. E.T., 2025 Ohio 1558 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(D)(1)(c) — 3 cases
In re J.V., 2012 Ohio 4961 (Ohio 2012). “222, 148 Ohio Laws, Part V, 10900. {¶ 36} Against this backdrop, the General Assembly enacted S.”
In re K.M.P., 2019 Ohio 4551 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
In re T.T., 2021 Ohio 759 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(D)(2) — 7 cases
State v. D.H., 901 N.E.2d 209 (Ohio 2009). “11(A)(2) and (F)(2) and R.C. 2152.13. {¶ 4} Because of D.H.’s age and the nature of his crime, the imposition of the adult portion of the sentence was discretionary, rather than mandatory.”
In re T.D.R., 2015 Ohio 3541 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
In re N.S., 2017 Ohio 163 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
In re M.M., 2018 Ohio 1110 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
State v. L.A.B., 2021 Ohio 4323 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(D)(2)(a) — 6 cases
State v. D.H., 901 N.E.2d 209 (Ohio 2009). “11(A)(2) and (F)(2) and R.C. 2152.13. {¶ 4} Because of D.H.’s age and the nature of his crime, the imposition of the adult portion of the sentence was discretionary, rather than mandatory.”
In re J.G., 2021 Ohio 1624 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “R.C. 2152.13. The adult sentence remains stayed unless the juvenile fails to successfully complete his or her traditional juvenile disposition.”
Bucio v. Sutherland, 674 F. Supp. 2d 882 (S.D. Ohio 2009). “The juvenile court violated R.C. 2152.13, and Jorge Bucio’s right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution when it overruled the defense motion to dismiss the indictment.”
In re T.D.R., 2015 Ohio 3541 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
In re S.D., 2021 Ohio 2747 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(D)(2)(a)(i) — 15 cases
State v. D.H., 901 N.E.2d 209 (Ohio 2009). “11(A)(2) and (F)(2) and R.C. 2152.13. {¶ 4} Because of D.H.’s age and the nature of his crime, the imposition of the adult portion of the sentence was discretionary, rather than mandatory.”
In re C.P., 2012 Ohio 1446 (Ohio 2012). “86, PRQJOR status is assigned to juveniles who (1) were 14 through 17 years old when the offense was committed, (2) have been adjudicated a delinquent child for committing certain specified sexually oriented offenses, including rape, gross sexual imposition when the victim is…”
In re J.G., 2021 Ohio 1624 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “R.C. 2152.13. The adult sentence remains stayed unless the juvenile fails to successfully complete his or her traditional juvenile disposition.”
State v. Stidam, 2016 Ohio 7906 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “’ 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.”
Bucio v. Sutherland, 674 F. Supp. 2d 882 (S.D. Ohio 2009). “The juvenile court violated R.C. 2152.13, and Jorge Bucio’s right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution when it overruled the defense motion to dismiss the indictment.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(D)(2)(a)(ii) — 6 cases
In re C.P., 2012 Ohio 1446 (Ohio 2012). “86, PRQJOR status is assigned to juveniles who (1) were 14 through 17 years old when the offense was committed, (2) have been adjudicated a delinquent child for committing certain specified sexually oriented offenses, including rape, gross sexual imposition when the victim is…”
State v. D.H., 901 N.E.2d 209 (Ohio 2009). “11(A)(2) and (F)(2) and R.C. 2152.13. {¶ 4} Because of D.H.’s age and the nature of his crime, the imposition of the adult portion of the sentence was discretionary, rather than mandatory.”
State v. Martin, 2016 Ohio 922 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Stidam, 2016 Ohio 7906 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “’ 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.”
In re M.M., 2018 Ohio 1110 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(D)(2)(a)(iii) — 16 cases
In re C.P., 2012 Ohio 1446 (Ohio 2012). “86, PRQJOR status is assigned to juveniles who (1) were 14 through 17 years old when the offense was committed, (2) have been adjudicated a delinquent child for committing certain specified sexually oriented offenses, including rape, gross sexual imposition when the victim is…”
State v. D.H., 901 N.E.2d 209 (Ohio 2009). “11(A)(2) and (F)(2) and R.C. 2152.13. {¶ 4} Because of D.H.’s age and the nature of his crime, the imposition of the adult portion of the sentence was discretionary, rather than mandatory.”
In re J.V., 2012 Ohio 4961 (Ohio 2012). “222, 148 Ohio Laws, Part V, 10900. {¶ 36} Against this backdrop, the General Assembly enacted S.”
State v. Martin, 2016 Ohio 922 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Stidam, 2016 Ohio 7906 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “’ 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.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(D)(3) — 7 cases
In re J.S., 2013 Ohio 1721 (Ohio 2013). “This case, involving as it does a serious- youthful-offender (“SYO”) sentence under R.C. 2152.13, is one of public or great general interest.”
In re J.C., 2021 Ohio 4313 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
In re J.G., 2021 Ohio 1624 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “R.C. 2152.13. The adult sentence remains stayed unless the juvenile fails to successfully complete his or her traditional juvenile disposition.”
In re T.D.R., 2015 Ohio 3541 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
State v. E.T., 2025 Ohio 1558 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2152.13(E)(1) — 2 cases
In re Anderson, 748 N.E.2d 67 (Ohio 2001).
In re Anderson, 2001 Ohio 131 (Ohio 2001).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.