2020 Ohio 4128
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- B.D., a juvenile, was charged in Hamilton County with offenses tied to alleged solicitation/prostitution and moved for diversion under R.C. 2152.021(F)’s “safe harbor,” claiming he was a human‑trafficking victim and that the charged acts were related to that victimization.
- R.C. 2152.021(F) permits a juvenile court, before adjudication, to hold a complaint in abeyance while the child completes diversion actions; if the child completes them, the court shall dismiss the complaint.
- The juvenile court, after initially questioning jurisdiction but then proceeding by agreement, held a hearing and denied B.D.’s motion to divert and declined to find him a trafficking victim.
- B.D. appealed the denial. The State moved to dismiss, arguing the order was not a final appealable order and the appellate court lacked jurisdiction.
- The appellate court considered whether the denial was a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) (affects a substantial right in a special proceeding) or R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) (provisional remedy), and concluded it was neither.
- The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because R.C. 2152.021(F) is permissive (no protected substantial right) and the diversion proceeding is not an ancillary provisional remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of safe‑harbor diversion is a final order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(2) (special proceeding affecting a substantial right) | B.D.: denial affects a significant statutory right to diversion/protection for trafficking victims and so is final | State: the safe‑harbor statute is permissive; no legal/substantial right is created and no appellate review provision exists | Held: Not final under (B)(2). The statute is discretionary, so no substantial right for immediate appeal |
| Whether denial is final under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) as a provisional remedy (ancillary proceeding) | B.D.: the diversion hearing is analogous to bindover or a preliminary injunction and is ancillary to the main action, so it’s a provisional remedy | State: the diversion process is not ancillary to adult prosecution; it’s a separate diversion mechanism more like intervention in lieu of conviction | Held: Not final under (B)(4). The safe‑harbor process is not a provisional remedy/ancillary proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.H., 152 Ohio St.3d 310 (recognizing bindover as a provisional remedy)
- Thomasson v. Thomasson, 153 Ohio St.3d 398 (explaining elements for (B)(2) finality)
- State v. Coffman, 91 Ohio St.3d 125 (defining a substantial right and noting permissive statutes do not create one)
- State ex rel. Fowler v. Smith, 68 Ohio St.3d 357 (juvenile proceedings are special proceedings)
- In re A.J.S., 120 Ohio St.3d 185 (bindover is ancillary to adult prosecution)
- State v. Muncie, 91 Ohio St.3d 440 (analysis of provisional remedies)
- Community First Bank & Trust v. Dafoe, 108 Ohio St.3d 472 (ancillary procedures are ‘offshoots’ of main action)
- State v. Roome, 92 N.E.3d 59 (intervention statute is permissive and does not create a legal right)