Case Information
*1
[This decision has been published in
Ohio Official Reports
at
T HE TATE EX REL . B ORDEN A PPELLANT v. H ENDON J UDGE ET AL ., A PPELLEES .
[Cite as
State ex rel. Borden v. Hendon
,
Mandamus sought to compel juvenile court judge and juvenile detention center
superintendent to immediately release relator from custody—Court of appeals’ dismissal of complaint affirmed, when.
(No. 2001-1954 — Submitted May 7, 2002 — Decided July 24, 2002.) A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-010601.
Per Curiam. In April 1999, a complaint was filed in the Hamilton County Juvenile
Court charging appellant, Rico Borden, a juvenile, with rape. Following a trial, the juvenile court adjudicated Borden a delinquent child based on one count of rape. On January 7, 2000, the juvenile court committed Borden to the custody of the Ohio Department of Youth Services (“DYS”) for a minimum period of twelve months and a maximum period not to extend beyond his 21st birthday. On that same date, the juvenile court suspended the foregoing order and committed him to the custody of Hillcrest School with an order for him to “obey all laws and orders” of the court and specifying that the commitment was to remain in effect until Borden reached the age of 21. Borden subsequently ran away from the Hillcrest School, and on
March 1, 2000, the juvenile court terminated his placement at the school and imposed his original commitment to DYS. The juvenile court based its March 1, 2000 judgment upon its finding that Borden violated his probation. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County reversed the
judgment of the juvenile court in part on August 22, 2001. The court of appeals *2 found that the juvenile court erred in failing to give Borden credit for days he had spent in detention on a separate, original delinquency charge that had been dismissed for want of prosecution. The court of appeals further found that the juvenile court’s finding of a probation violation was erroneous because the record did not contain an entry placing Borden on probation, written notice of any probation, or the basis for a proposed probation revocation. The court of appeals remanded the cause “for further proceedings consistent with law and this Judgment Entry.” On remand, appellee Judge Sieve Sylvia Hendon of the juvenile court,
on September 11, 2001, entered a judgment in which she determined that Borden’s violation of the court’s order of placement in Hillcrest School warranted the imposition of his original suspended commitment to DYS. Previously, on August 31, 2001, Judge Hendon had credited Borden with an additional 26 days of credit for his previous detention, in accordance with the court of appeals’ ruling. On September 13, 2001, Borden filed a complaint in the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, Judge Hendon and Hamilton County Juvenile Detention Center Superintendent Robert Dugan, to “release [Borden] from custody and/or act in compliance with [the court of appeals’] August 22, 2001 Judgment Entry.” In the introductory paragraph of his complaint, Borden alleged that he was being wrongfully detained in the Hamilton County Juvenile Detention Center with a pending order to be transported back to a DYS correctional facility and that he was “entitled to immediate release.” Appellees filed a motion to dismiss. In October 2001, the court of appeals granted appellees’ motion and dismissed Borden’s complaint. In his appeal as of right, Borden asserts that the court of appeals erred
in dismissing his complaint for a writ of mandamus. For the foregoing reasons, however, dismissal was warranted.
January Term, 2002 Initially, it is evident from Borden’s complaint that the true objective
of his mandamus action was to obtain an immediate release from custody. But
habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the proper action through which to seek
release from prison or other physical confinement.
State ex rel. Bennett v. White
(2001),
of law by appeal and a motion for contempt to raise his claim that Judge Hendon
violated the court of appeals’ August 22, 2002 mandate. See, generally,
State ex
rel. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Henson,
disregard any court of appeals mandate here. The court of appeals was in the best
position to determine whether Judge Hendon acted in clear violation of its August
22, 2001 ruling, and it evidently concluded that she had not by dismissing Borden’s
writ action. See, e.g.,
State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield Hts.
(2001),
S C Finally, the cases cited by Borden in support of his contention that
any alternative remedy would be inadequate are distinguishable. Unlike the cases
relied upon by Borden, this case involves no special circumstances or dramatic fact
pattern that would permit Borden to circumvent the ordinary legal processes. See,
e.g.,
State ex rel. Sohi v. Williams
(1997),
Judgment affirmed. M OYER C.J., D OUGLAS R ESNICK F.E. S WEENEY , P FEIFER , OOK and L UNDBERG TRATTON JJ., concur.
__________________
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, and Felice Harris, Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant.
Michael K. Allen, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip R.
Cummings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.