Collins v. Sweeney, 2016 Ohio 5468

Relator Frankie Hudson Jr. was originally indicted in 2013 on multiple counts (aggravated robbery, aggravated murder, and weapons-under-disability) tied to incidents in 2010 and 2011; some counts were dismissed and others led to convictions/sentences in related cases.
Hudson pleaded guilty to one weapons-under-disability count from the 2013 indictment and was sentenced to three years (to run consecutively to another sentence from 2013 convictions).
In November 2015 a new grand jury returned a three-count indictment charging Hudson with the December 14, 2010 aggravated robbery and aggravated murder of Christopher Weston and weapons-under-disability; Hudson pleaded not guilty and pretrial proceedings followed.
Trial was set for August 22, 2016; Hudson filed a petition for a writ of prohibition four days before trial seeking to bar the common pleas court from proceeding, arguing juvenile court had exclusive jurisdiction under R.C. 2152.02(C).
The court examined Hudson’s custody status at the time relevant to R.C. 2152.02(C)(3) and found he was incarcerated on unrelated sentences when the 2015 indictment was returned (i.e., he was not taken into custody for the 2015 charges while under 21), undermining his argument that he remained a “child” for those acts.
The court also noted the offenses in the 2015 indictment would have been mandatorily bound over from juvenile court (or appropriately transferred), and that Hudson has an adequate remedy by appeal if convicted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction under R.C. 2152.02(C) over the 2015 indictment	Hudson: He was still a "child" for the offenses because the related 2013 indictment/charges arose from acts committed while under 18	State/Respondent: At the time the 2015 indictment was filed Hudson was over 21 and was not being taken into custody for these acts while under 21; common pleas has jurisdiction	Court: Denied writ — cannot say common pleas patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction because the record shows Hudson was not apprehended for those acts while under 21
Whether prohibition is appropriate given alternative remedies	Hudson: Prohibition needed to prevent trial in wrong forum	Respondent: Prohibition is extraordinary; appeal provides adequate remedy unless jurisdiction is patently lacking	Court: Prohibition inappropriate; because jurisdiction is not patently and unambiguously lacking, appeal is adequate remedy

State ex rel. Burtzlaff v. Vickery, 166 N.E. 894 (Ohio 1929) (defines writ of prohibition as extraordinary writ to restrain inferior tribunals from usurping judicial functions)
State ex rel. Jones v. Suster, 701 N.E.2d 1002 (Ohio 1998) (explains prohibition’s purpose and limits)
State ex rel. Henry v. Britt, 424 N.E.2d 297 (Ohio 1981) (prohibition is extraordinary and granted with caution)
State ex rel. Barclays Bank PLC v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 660 N.E.2d 458 (Ohio 1996) (prohibition not routinely granted)
State ex rel. White v. Junkin, 686 N.E.2d 267 (Ohio 1997) (elements required to obtain prohibition)
State ex rel. Scott v. Cleveland, 859 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2006) (unless jurisdiction is patently and unambiguously lacking, appeal is adequate remedy)