2018 Ohio 300
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Ja’Relle J. Smith (petitioner) faced multiple juvenile felony charges in several case numbers and, at a March 22, 2012 pretrial, waived probable-cause hearings and agreed some cases be bound over to the Summit County Court of Common Pleas.
- At the March 22 pretrial the prosecutor mentioned additional cases and the court arraigned Smith on two more case numbers and told parties to obtain a pretrial date; Smith’s father was present at that March 22 hearing.
- A March 26, 2012 entry set pretrials for the two new cases for March 27 and indicates notice was sent to Tony Smith, Sr. (petitioner’s father).
- On March 27, 2012 Smith again waived a probable-cause hearing and those two cases were bound over; Smith’s father was not present at the March 27 hearing.
- Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition claiming the bindover was improper because his father was not given notice of the bindover proceedings; respondent produced notices showing service on petitioner’s parent(s).
- The court considered whether habeas relief was permissible given available remedies at law and whether notice to the proper custodial parent was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bindover was improper for lack of notice to petitioner’s father | Smith: no written record shows notice to his father of the bindover/pretrial | Respondent: court records and notice forms show service on petitioner’s parents; adequate remedy at law existed | Denied habeas — records contradict Smith and an adequate remedy at law existed |
| Whether lack of notice (if proven) would deprive common pleas court of subject-matter jurisdiction | Smith: improper notice strips jurisdiction and warrants habeas (relies on Turner) | Respondent: Turner is distinguishable; here entries show notice to parents and waived probable-cause at pretrial rather than a statutory R.C. 2152.12 bindover hearing | Court: Turner distinguishable; no showing that required statutory bindover hearing notice under R.C. 2152.12 was violated |
| Whether the proceeding at issue was a bindover hearing triggering R.C. 2152.12 notice requirements | Smith: treats the pretrial/bindover process as lacking proper notice | Respondent: the March 27 hearing was a pretrial where Smith waived the R.C. 2152.12 bindover; bindover hearing had not been separately held | Court: March 27 was a pretrial with waiver of probable-cause; R.C. 2152.12 bindover hearing was not held as in Turner |
| Whether habeas is available given prior appellate remedy | Smith: seeks habeas to challenge bindover notice | Respondent: petitioner had an adequate remedy by appeal and raised these claims in his direct appeal | Court: habeas relief unavailable where adequate remedy at law exists or was previously invoked — petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Bradshaw, 109 Ohio St.3d 50, 845 N.E.2d 516 (Ohio 2006) (habeas unavailable when adequate remedy at law exists)
- In re Complaint for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Goeller, 816 N.E.2d 594 (Ohio 2004) (same principle stating habeas is extraordinary relief)
- State ex rel. Blackwell v. Crawford, 835 N.E.2d 1232 (Ohio 2005) (challenge to jurisdiction has adequate remedy by appeal absent patent lack of jurisdiction)
- Agee v. Russell, 751 N.E.2d 1043 (Ohio 2001) (application of adequate-remedy principle to bindover challenges)
- Childers v. Wingard, 700 N.E.2d 588 (Ohio 1998) (extraordinary writ not available to relitigate issues after unsuccessful legal remedies)
- State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Gwin, 594 N.E.2d 616 (Ohio 1992) (prohibits successive extraordinary-writ attempts to obtain review of the same issue)
- Turner v. Hooks, 55 N.E.3d 1133 (Ohio App. 4th Dist. 2016) (holding improper notice of bindover hearing can deprive common pleas court of jurisdiction; distinguished here)