Stever v. Wainwright (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 1452

In 1987 Stanley J. Stever (a juvenile at the time) was charged in Wyandot County with aggravated murder, pleaded guilty in the Court of Common Pleas, and was sentenced to life with parole eligibility after 20 years.
In 2018 Stever filed a habeas corpus petition claiming the common pleas court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because his case never commenced in juvenile court (no complaint, no juvenile custody/complaint, no probable-cause entry, and no bindover/transfer entry).
Stever attached a letter from the juvenile court clerk saying the court had no 1987 case for him.
The warden moved to dismiss; the court of appeals denied the motion and ordered a return of writ requiring the warden to show why the 1987 judgment was not void for lack of jurisdiction.
The warden filed a return with nine exhibits showing (among other things) a juvenile-delinquency complaint filed June 4, 1987; a detention hearing; an order for forensic examination; and a bindover hearing on October 29, 1987 that transferred jurisdiction to the common pleas court.
The Third District dismissed Stever’s habeas petition, finding his premise false and that the common pleas court did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction; Stever appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Stever)	Defendant's Argument (Wainwright)	Held
1. Did the common pleas court acquire subject-matter jurisdiction over Stever’s 1987 case?	No — no juvenile complaint, no juvenile custody, no bindover; therefore common pleas lacked jurisdiction.	Yes — warden produced exhibits showing a juvenile complaint, detention proceedings, forensic exam order, and a bindover transferring jurisdiction.	Court: Claim false; jurisdiction existed; habeas fails because lack of jurisdiction was not patent and unambiguous.
2. Does the juvenile court’s alleged failure to maintain records under R.C. 2152.71(A) mean nothing was filed and no bindover occurred?	Yes — missing juvenile records show nothing was filed or bound over, so common pleas never obtained jurisdiction.	No — the statute cited was enacted in 2002 (after 1987); absence of original records does not prevent the warden from producing copies that refute Stever’s claim.	Court: Rejects Stever; statute not retroactive and submitted evidence rebuts claim.
3. Should the court of appeals have considered the warden’s nine exhibits (admissibility under Evid.R. 301 and 1005)?	Exhibits are inadmissible; considering them violated the rules of evidence.	Issue waived — Stever did not raise admissibility below; court may consider the return’s exhibits to refute the habeas claim.	Court: Issue waived on appeal; consideration of exhibits proper for resolving habeas return; claim rejected.

Ross v. Saros, 99 Ohio St.3d 412 (establishes that a habeas petitioner alleging lack of subject-matter jurisdiction must show the lack was patent and unambiguous)
State ex rel. Gibson v. Sloan, 147 Ohio St.3d 240 (failure to raise an issue in the court of appeals waives it on appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court)
Phillips v. Irwin, 96 Ohio St.3d 350 (same rule on waiver of issues not raised below)