Johnson v. Sloan
2016 Ohio 5375
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Robert L. Johnson was bound over from juvenile court in 1987 and later convicted in Cuyahoga Common Pleas of aggravated robbery (with gun spec.) and aggravated murder (felony-murder), receiving concurrent terms including life imprisonment.
- Johnson pursued direct and collateral relief in state courts (delayed appeal, reopening denied, motion for new trial denied) and federal habeas, all unsuccessful; he filed the instant Ohio habeas petition in January 2016.
- Johnson's habeas claim: juvenile court failed to administer a required physical examination before bindover, so the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him.
- The juvenile bindover entries stated a physical examination had been performed; Johnson concedes he received two mental examinations showing amenability to bindover.
- The court treated the respondent’s filing as a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss and evaluated whether Johnson alleged a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction that would allow habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas corpus lies because juvenile court failed to administer a physical exam pre-bindover | Johnson: No physical exam was done, so bindover was void and common pleas lacked jurisdiction | Warden: Bindover entries show the exam was performed; jurisdictional defect is not patent and Johnson had other remedies | Dismissed — no patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction; dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) granted |
| Whether habeas is available when petitioner failed to raise bindover defect earlier | Johnson: Did not raise earlier but seeks habeas now | Warden: Habeas unavailable when an adequate remedy (direct appeal) existed absent a patent jurisdictional defect | Held against Johnson — he had an adequate remedy at law and offered no patent jurisdictional defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211 (Ohio 2003) (habeas corpus is a civil action under Ohio law)
- Gaskins v. Shiplevy, 74 Ohio St.3d 149 (Ohio 1995) (Civil Rules may apply to habeas when not clearly inapplicable)
- Celeste v. Wiseco Piston, 151 Ohio App.3d 554 (Ohio App. 2003) (pleadings must be construed in favor of nonmoving party on motion to dismiss)
- Johnson v. Timmerman-Cooper, 93 Ohio St.3d 614 (Ohio 2001) (habeas is available in exceptional circumstances where unlawful restraint exists)
- State ex rel. Fryerson v. Tate, 84 Ohio St.3d 481 (Ohio 1999) (habeas generally not available when adequate remedy at law exists; limited exception for jurisdictional challenges)
- Gaskins v. Shiplevy, 76 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1996) (habeas will not lie if bindover judgment shows correct procedure followed)
- Ross v. Saros, 99 Ohio St.3d 412 (Ohio 2003) (challenge to trial court subject-matter jurisdiction must show patent and unambiguous defect)
- Agee v. Russell, 92 Ohio St.3d 540 (Ohio 2001) (definition and standard for patent jurisdictional defects)
- In re Baker v. Stewart, 116 Ohio App.3d 580 (Ohio App. 1996) (habeas relief limited to void bindovers where jurisdiction patently lacking)
- State ex rel. Harris v. Anderson, 76 Ohio St.3d 193 (Ohio 1996) (bindover procedural defects do not automatically permit habeas unless jurisdictional defect is patent)