In re B.J.M.
2016 Ohio 7651
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Juvenile B.J.M. was charged with criminal trespass for entering Willowick parks after police informed him he was barred for the remainder of the year. A plea of not true was entered; matter proceeded to a magistrate trial on March 1, 2016.
- Magistrate issued a decision on March 1, 2016; the juvenile court disapproved that decision the same day and on March 3, 2016 adopted an Amended Magistrate’s Decision finding the charge true and imposing community control and other sanctions.
- B.J.M. filed objections on March 14, 2016 captioned as objections to the March 1 decision (which the court already had disapproved and superseded by the March 3 amended decision).
- The juvenile court overruled the objections on April 20, 2016, and later denied a motion to treat the March 14 objections as directed to the March 3 amended decision.
- B.J.M. filed a notice of appeal on May 20, 2016 from the April 20 entry; the appellate court held it lacked jurisdiction because the March 3 adoption of the amended magistrate decision became a final order and the appeal deadline (30 days) expired April 4, 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is timely | B.J.M. contends his March 14 objections stayed the judgment and were intended to challenge the March 3 amended decision, so his May 20 appeal was timely. | State/juvenile court argues no objections were filed to the March 3 amended decision; March 3 entry was final and appeal deadline expired April 4. | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; notice of appeal was untimely. |
| Whether objections to March 1 decision tolled appeal time | B.J.M. argues objections filed March 14 effectively applied to the only extant decision (March 3) and thus tolled time. | Court counters the March 1 decision was disapproved and superseded; objections to a nullified decision do not extend appeal time. | Objections to March 1 did not extend the appeal period for the March 3 final order. |
| Whether trial court had jurisdiction to recharacterize or accept late objections | B.J.M. contends the court could treat caption as scrivener’s error and apply objections to March 3 decision. | State says trial court lacked authority to permit objections after the decision was adopted and final. | Court held trial court lacked jurisdiction to treat the objections as timely to the March 3 decision; its later rulings could not revive the time to appeal. |
| Whether appellate court should reach merits despite procedural defect | B.J.M. (in dissent) urges decision on merits and equitable treatment of objections. | Majority maintains appellate courts must raise jurisdictional defects sua sponte and cannot reach merits without timely appeal. | Majority dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction; dissent argued for merit review and equitable application of objections. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Pendell v. Adams Cty. Bd. of Elections, 40 Ohio St.3d 58 (1988) (untimely notice of appeal deprives reviewing court of jurisdiction)
- In re O.H.W., 175 Ohio App.3d 349 (2008) (timely objections required; absent timely objections, adoption of magistrate decision becomes final and appeal period runs)
- Wagner v. Long, 133 Ohio St. 41 (1937) (substance of pleading controls over title; substance prevails over form)
- Klein v. Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Co., 13 Ohio St.2d 85 (1968) (overruling context cited in Wagner)
- Cero Realty Corp. v. Am. Mfr. Mut. Ins. Co., 171 Ohio St. 82 (1960) (cases should be decided on merits where possible)