Turner v. Hooks
99 N.E.3d 354
Ohio2018Background
- In 2008 Turner (age 17 at the time) was charged with murder in juvenile court; the state moved to transfer (bindover) him to adult court.
- The juvenile court served notice of the transfer hearing on Turner’s biological mother, Tara Turner; his legal custodian since 2005 was his grandmother, Sylvia Watts, who was not served.
- Turner was tried and convicted in the general division; he later filed a habeas petition arguing the transfer was void because R.C. 2152.12(G) required notice to the child’s custodian (Watts).
- The Fourth District granted habeas relief and ordered Turner’s release, concluding failure to notify the legal custodian was a jurisdictional defect.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding service on Turner’s biological mother satisfied the statutory notice requirement in R.C. 2152.12(G).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2152.12(G) required notice to the child’s legal custodian (Watts) for bindover | Turner: failure to notify legal custodian rendered transfer jurisdictionally defective | State/Hooks: statute requires notice to “parents, guardian, or other custodian” in the disjunctive; notice to a parent suffices | Court: statute unambiguous; notice to biological parent whose parental rights were not fully terminated satisfied R.C. 2152.12(G) |
| Whether the term “parents” is ambiguous and requires construction to exclude a biological parent with only residual rights | Turner: biological parent without custody should not satisfy notice requirement; constitutional due-process concerns | State/Hooks: plain statutory language disjunctively lists alternatives; no ambiguity | Court: term is not ambiguous here; no need to apply canons; plain-language reading controls |
| Whether factual due-process adequacy of notice should be examined (concurrence) | Turner: factual circumstances (who actually received notice, prior court entries) matter for “reasonably calculated” standard | State: compliance with statutory notice is dispositive | Concurral: would assess whether notice was reasonably calculated under Mullane; concluded facts showed adequate notice here |
| Whether juvenile court retained exclusive jurisdiction due to defective bindover (dissent) | Turner: notice to non-custodial mother was constitutionally insufficient; thus juvenile court kept jurisdiction | State: statutory notice satisfied; transfer valid | Dissent: would find notice constitutionally insufficient and retain juvenile-court jurisdiction (would reverse differently) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cline v. Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 61 Ohio St.3d 93, 573 N.E.2d 77 (1991) (plain-language statutory interpretation; rules of construction used only if statute ambiguous)
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) (juvenile proceedings require due-process protections, including notice)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- State v. Wilson, 73 Ohio St.3d 40, 652 N.E.2d 196 (1995) (juvenile court retains exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction absent proper transfer)
- In re Foreclosure of Liens for Delinquent Taxes, 62 Ohio St.2d 333, 405 N.E.2d 1030 (1980) (notice statutes evaluated under a flexible due-process standard; physical address must be reasonably calculated to provide notice)