State v. Hudson, 203 N.E.3d 658

Frankie Hudson was arrested on August 19, 2013 at age 20 and indicted in Mahoning County on counts that arose from acts he allegedly committed at ages 17 and 18; the first three counts derived from the act when he was 17.
R.C. 2152.02(C)(3) and 2151.23(I) provide that if a person who committed an act as a minor is not taken into custody for that act until after age 21, the juvenile court lacks jurisdiction; conversely, if custody occurs before 21 the juvenile court retains exclusive jurisdiction.
The state conceded the original indictment was jurisdictionally defective as to the juvenile-related counts and moved to dismiss those counts; the trial court granted dismissal and the grand jury reindicted Hudson the same day when he was 22.
The trial court denied Hudson’s later motion to dismiss the superseding indictment on subject-matter-jurisdiction grounds; Hudson then pleaded no contest to the juvenile-related counts and was sentenced to 15 years.
Hudson appealed; the Seventh District affirmed. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted review to decide whether the general division had jurisdiction when Hudson was taken into custody at age 20 for acts committed as a juvenile.
The Ohio Supreme Court held the juvenile court had exclusive jurisdiction because Hudson was taken into custody before turning 21, and the dismissal-and-reindictment did not cure the jurisdictional defect.

Issue	State's Argument	Hudson's Argument	Held
Whether the general division of the common pleas court has jurisdiction over felony-level acts allegedly committed while the defendant was a juvenile but for which he was first taken into custody at age 20	Jurisdiction is determined by custody date tied to the operative indictment; because Hudson was reindicted and taken into custody at 22, the juvenile court was divested	Hudson was taken into custody at 20 for those acts, so juvenile court retained exclusive jurisdiction	Juvenile court had exclusive jurisdiction; general division never obtained jurisdiction because Hudson was taken into custody before 21
Whether dismissal of the defective indictment and same-day reindictment when the defendant was over 21 cures the jurisdictional defect	Dismissal of the original indictment ends consideration of the earlier custody date; reindictment when >21 cures defect	Continuous custody from the time he was 20 means the jurisdictional defect remained and cannot be cured by later reindictment	Dismissal and reindictment did not cure the defect; jurisdiction depends on when the person was taken into custody and here custody occurred before age 21

Slingluff v. Weaver, 66 Ohio St. 621 (sets principle that courts must apply the plain meaning of enacted statutory language)
Jones v. Action Coupling & Equip., Inc., 98 Ohio St.3d 330 (statutory text controls when language is plain and unambiguous)
Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437 (R.C. 2151.23(I) removes anyone over 21 from juvenile-court jurisdiction regardless of offense date)
Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (if a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction it must dismiss)
Corder v. Ohio Edison Co., 162 Ohio St.3d 639 (explains subject-matter jurisdiction focuses on the forum's competence, not individual parties)