State ex rel. Parker v. Black
2021 Ohio 2739
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Petitioner Donell Parker (charged as a juvenile in a 1987 killing) was the subject of a Cuyahoga County juvenile transfer proceeding in March–April 1996 and a bindover order was filed in the juvenile division on April 8, 1996.
- A Cuyahoga County grand jury returned indictments on April 16, 1996; Parker was tried by jury, convicted of aggravated murder and aggravated robbery with firearm specifications, and sentenced to lengthy consecutive terms.
- The Eighth District affirmed Parker’s convictions on direct appeal.
- In May 2021 Parker filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging: (1) the validity and filing/docketing of the juvenile transfer/bindover; (2) compliance of the bindover with former R.C. 2151.26 and Juv.R. 30; and (3) whether Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment complied with Crim.R. 6(F). He sought immediate release.
- Respondent (the warden, represented by the Ohio Attorney General) moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing res judicata and that Parker’s exhibits and pleadings show no basis for habeas relief.
- The court treated Parker’s attached exhibits as part of the pleadings, found his challenges meritless or barred because they could have been raised on direct appeal, and granted the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the common pleas general division acquired subject-matter jurisdiction because the juvenile bindover was not filed/docketed in the general division | Parker: bindover was not docketed in the general division, so general division lacked jurisdiction | State: bindover was filed in the juvenile division and properly effectuated transfer; general division acquired jurisdiction before arraignment | Court: bindover filed in juvenile division sufficiently shows transfer and general division had jurisdiction; claim fails |
| Whether the bindover complied with former R.C. 2151.26 and Juv.R. 30 (adequacy of factual findings, hearing, waiver, counsel) | Parker: juvenile court failed to hold required hearing, did not record waiver/mental exam/amenability or appoint counsel timely | State: the bindover order and attached exhibits indicate a hearing occurred, waiver was made through counsel, and the order documents required matters | Court: exhibits show compliance (or at least do not negate compliance); claim lacks merit |
| Whether Counts Two and Three of the indictment failed to comply with Crim.R. 6(F) (not “returned”) | Parker: Counts 2 & 3 lack time stamps and thus were not properly returned/filed | State: indictments were filed as a single instrument on April 16, 1996; docket and exhibits show three counts pending | Court: record shows indictments filed together; Crim.R. 6(F) challenge lacks merit |
| Whether habeas relief is available given alternative remedies / res judicata | Parker: asks for habeas relief on transfer/indictment defects | State: these claims could have been raised on direct appeal or by other remedies; res judicata and adequacy of remedies bar habeas | Court: habeas is unavailable because issues could have been raised on direct appeal; res judicata bars collateral habeas attack; petition dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Wainwright, 165 N.E.3d 1253 (Ohio 2020) (permitting a res judicata defense to be addressed on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion when the defense depends only on the pleadings)
- Whitt v. Harris, 137 N.E.3d 71 (Ohio 2019) (habeas relief requires unlawful restraint and entitlement to immediate release)
- Cannon v. Mohr, 120 N.E.3d 776 (Ohio 2018) (same standard for habeas availability)
- Billiter v. Banks, 988 N.E.2d 556 (Ohio 2013) (habeas corpus is not available when an adequate remedy at law exists)
- Cornell v. Schotten, 633 N.E.2d 1111 (Ohio 1994) (issues that could have been raised on direct appeal may not be litigated in habeas)
- State v. Perry, 226 N.E.2d 104 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata bars collateral attack on convictions for issues raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal)
- Moore v. Wainwright, 154 N.E.3d 22 (Ohio 2020) (bindover challenges are properly raised on direct appeal)
- Arroyo v. Sloan, 33 N.E.3d 56 (Ohio 2015) (habeas is not the proper vehicle to attack the validity of a charging instrument)
- McGee v. Sheldon, 969 N.E.2d 262 (Ohio 2012) (same principle regarding availability of habeas relief)