State v. Chavis, 2015 Ohio 5549

Background

Jeremy L. Chavis was convicted by jury in 2001 of two counts of aggravated murder and sentenced to consecutive life terms plus a firearm specification; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in 2003.
Crimes occurred June 26, 1996; Chavis was born August 6, 1979 (age 16 at the time), but he was indicted in November 2000 (age 21).
In 2014 Chavis filed a "Motion to Vacate a Void Judgment" (treated as a successive postconviction petition) arguing the common pleas court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because no juvenile bindover under former R.C. 2151.26 occurred.
Trial court denied the successive petition as untimely and barred by res judicata; Chavis appealed, asserting (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and (2) that the 1997 juvenile statute amendments (R.C. 2151.23(I)) are unconstitutionally retroactive/ex post facto as applied.
The court considered whether R.C. 2151.23(I) — which provides that if a person is not apprehended until after age 21 the juvenile court lacks jurisdiction — controlled and whether its retroactive application violated Ohio constitutional retroactivity principles or the federal Ex Post Facto Clause.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the common pleas court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Chavis was 16 at the time of the offense and there was no juvenile bindover	State: R.C. 2151.23(I) applies when offender is not apprehended until after 21; common pleas court had jurisdiction	Chavis: Former R.C. 2151.26 required juvenile bindover; without it the juvenile court had exclusive jurisdiction and the conviction is void	Court held R.C. 2151.23(I) applies—juvenile court lacked jurisdiction once not apprehended until after 21; common pleas court had jurisdiction; conviction not void
Whether the 1997 enactment of R.C. 2151.23(I) is unconstitutionally retroactive under Ohio law	State: Walls and related precedent permit retroactive application of juvenile jurisdictional amendment and categorize it as non-substantive/jurisdictional	Chavis: He is entitled to the law in effect at the time of the offense (1996); retroactive application impairs substantive rights
Whether applying the 1997 juvenile amendments violates the Ex Post Facto Clause	State: Applying the amendment did not increase punishment in any non-speculative way; no ex post facto violation	Chavis: Retroactive amendments could increase punishment by causing adult prosecution rather than juvenile disposition
Whether Chavis’s successive postconviction petition should be entertained despite timeliness/res judicata	State: Petition is successive and untimely; Chavis failed to show unavoidable prevention of discovery or new retroactive Supreme Court right	Chavis: Jurisdictional defect cannot be waived and may be raised at any time

Key Cases Cited

State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437 (2002) (upheld retroactive application of R.C. 2151.23(I) and held the amendment was not substantively retroactive or an ex post facto violation)
State v. Wilson, 73 Ohio St.3d 40 (1995) (absent proper bindover under former R.C. 2151.26 juvenile court has exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction)
State v. LaSalle, 96 Ohio St.3d 178 (2002) (two-part test for unconstitutional retroactivity analysis)
Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 36 Ohio St.3d 100 (1988) (presumption against retroactivity; express legislative intent required)
Bielat v. Bielat, 87 Ohio St.3d 350 (2000) (distinguishing substantive vs. remedial statute in retroactivity analysis)
State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (1998) (Ex Post Facto Clause applies to laws that retroactively increase punishment)
Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (framework for retroactivity and substantive/remedial distinction)
Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798) (foundational Ex Post Facto Clause principles regarding retroactive increases in punishment)
Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St.3d 68 (1988) (judgment rendered by a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction is void and may be vacated at any time)