Smith v. May (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 61

Background

In 2012 Ja’Relle Smith (age 16) faced four delinquency complaints in juvenile court for offenses that would be felonies as an adult; the juvenile court transferred the matters to adult court after bindover proceedings.
At a March 22, 2012 hearing Smith (and his father) participated and three matters were transferred; a March 27, 2012 hearing on a fourth matter resulted in transfer after Smith waived a probable-cause hearing, but his father had received written notice only one day before (statute required three days).
Smith was indicted in common pleas court, pleaded guilty to several counts, and received an aggregate 16-year sentence; his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
In 2017 Smith filed a habeas petition claiming the juvenile court’s failure to give his father timely notice under R.C. 2152.12(G) invalidated the bindover and left the common pleas court without subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Fifth District denied habeas relief; the Ohio Supreme Court considered whether the notice defect rendered the adult-court conviction void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and whether Gaskins v. Shiplevy remained controlling.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a juvenile-court failure to provide written notice under R.C. 2152.12(G) to a parent deprives the common pleas court of subject-matter jurisdiction over the transferred case	Smith: Missing or untimely notice under R.C. 2152.12(G) means the statutory bindover was improper and the adult court lacked jurisdiction; habeas relief is available	Warden/State: The March 27 hearing was a R.C. 2152.12 hearing (notice applied), but statutory notice requirements are not necessarily jurisdictional; Smith had remedies and waived father’s presence	Court: R.C. 2152.12(G) is not textually a jurisdictional prerequisite; failure to give timely notice did not deprive the adult court of subject-matter jurisdiction (habeas denied)
Whether Gaskins v. Shiplevy remains good law to allow collateral habeas attacks for any bindover procedural deviation	Smith relied on Gaskins to support collateral habeas relief for bindover errors	State argued later caselaw permits waiver/forfeiture and that Gaskins should be reconsidered	Court: Overruled Gaskins to the extent it held any bindover deviation automatically supports habeas; collateral relief only if statute clearly makes the requirement jurisdictional
Whether Smith had an adequate remedy at law (i.e., could have raised the error on direct appeal)	Smith argued bindover error could be raised collaterally in habeas because it affected jurisdiction	State: Smith could have objected or appealed; he waived father’s presence and thus forfeited the claim	Court: Smith had an adequate remedy and had waived the father’s presence; the defect was forfeitable and reviewable on direct appeal, not via habeas
Whether the March 27 hearing fell within R.C. 2152.12(G)’s notice requirement	Smith: The hearing was a bindover-type proceeding subject to R.C. 2152.12(G)	State initially argued it was a pretrial hearing, not a R.C. 2152.12 hearing; court of appeals agreed	Court: The hearing addressed relinquishment under R.C. 2152.12(A), so R.C. 2152.12(G) applied, but noncompliance did not strip jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Gaskins v. Shiplevy, 74 Ohio St.3d 149 (1995) (held improper bindover could support habeas collateral attack; overruled in part by this decision)
Gaskins v. Shiplevy, 76 Ohio St.3d 380 (1996) (on remand: evidence of waiver can validate bindover compliance)
State v. Wilson, 73 Ohio St.3d 40 (1995) (no bindover occurred; adult conviction void for lack of juvenile transfer)
Johnson v. Timmerman-Cooper, 93 Ohio St.3d 614 (2001) (bindover substantively invalid can render adult conviction void)
State v. D.W., 133 Ohio St.3d 434 (2012) (juvenile may waive amenability hearing; key bindover rights can be waived)
State v. Morgan, 153 Ohio St.3d 196 (2017) (bindover statutory defects subject to plain-error review when not preserved)
Johnson v. Sloan, 154 Ohio St.3d 476 (2018) (reaffirmed that failure to comply with mandatory bindover requirements can be ineffective transfer; court analyzed waiver/forfeiture issues)
Turner v. Hooks, 152 Ohio St.3d 559 (2018) (addressed notice under R.C. 2152.12(G); considered adequacy of provided notice)
Pryor v. Dir., Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 148 Ohio St.3d 1 (2016) (statutory requirements are jurisdictional only if legislature clearly states so)
State v. Mbodji, 129 Ohio St.3d 325 (2011) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived)