State ex rel. Grant v. Collins
2017 Ohio 1338
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Relator Scott A. Grant was indicted in 1985 and convicted by jury of involuntary manslaughter and kidnapping; rape charge was dismissed; convictions were previously affirmed on appeal.
- In August 2016, Judge Richard L. Collins, Jr. issued a judgment scheduling a Megan’s Law (R.C. 2950.09) hearing to determine whether Grant should be designated a sexual predator.
- Grant filed an original action seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent the judge from conducting the sexual-predator hearing, arguing Megan’s Law had been repealed and the court lacked jurisdiction.
- The judge (respondent) moved to dismiss, asserting Grant has an adequate remedy at law by way of direct appeal and thus prohibition is inappropriate.
- The court analyzed whether Grant alleged a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction (which would allow prohibition despite the availability of appeal).
- The court concluded Grant’s petition did not show a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction under R.C. 2950.09 and dismissed the petition under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to hold a Megan’s Law sexual-predator hearing | Grant: Megan’s Law was repealed so the court lacks jurisdiction | Collins: Statutory scheme (R.C. 2950.09) authorizes the sentencing court to hold the hearing | Court: Allegations do not show a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction; statutory scheme supports court’s authority |
| Whether a writ of prohibition is appropriate | Grant: Prohibition is needed to stop unauthorized action | Collins: Prohibition unavailable because an adequate remedy by appeal exists | Court: Prohibition unavailable absent patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction; appeal is adequate remedy here |
| Whether Grant pleaded facts sufficient to entitle him to relief | Grant: Petition asserts lack of jurisdiction based on repeal theory | Collins: Petition fails to allege a jurisdictional defect that is patent and unambiguous | Court: Viewing petition in plaintiff’s favor, no set of facts entitles Grant to a writ; dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) affirmed |
| Whether exceptions to the adequate-remedy rule apply | Grant: Repeal creates absolute lack of jurisdiction (exception) | Collins: No clear repeal-based defect shown to trigger exception | Court: No patent and unambiguous jurisdictional defect shown; exception inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Smith v. Hall, 50 N.E.3d 524 (Ohio 2016) (elements for writ of prohibition and appeal generally constitutes adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Rootstown Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Portage Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 678 N.E.2d 1365 (Ohio 1997) (courts of general jurisdiction may determine their own jurisdiction; appeal is adequate remedy absent patent defect)
- State v. McIntyre, 720 N.E.2d 222 (Ohio App.) (sentencing court must receive recommendation and may hold hearing for offenders sentenced before Megan’s Law effective date)