Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re Andrew

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 25, 2008No. 2007-0728Published

1DissentO’Connor, J.

{¶ 9} There is no dispute that Justin Andrew was 18 years of age at the time he waived his right, to counsel in his parole-violation hearing. The majority nevertheless concludes that he must be considered a “child” who could waive his right to counsel only after consulting with his parent, custodian, guardian, or attorney and that we must remand this case so that he can do so.

{¶ 10} I dissent.

*469I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 11} Andrew has been under the supervision of the juvenile court since November 2002, according to his brief, when at the age of 15, he was adjudicated a delinquent child.

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Iowa v. TovarSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. State v. GibsonOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  3. In re C.S.Ohio Supreme Court · 2007
  4. State Ex Rel. Asti v. Ohio Department of Youth ServicesOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Castleberry v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1946

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API