SEAN M. STEELE v. BRANDESHAWN HARRIS, WARDEN
CASE NO. 2019-T-0066
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO
October 28, 2019
2019-Ohio-4839
PER CURIAM OPINION
Original Action for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Sean Steele, pro-se, A-392-298, Trumbull Correctional Institution, 5701 Burnette Road, P.O. Box 901, Leavittsburg, Ohio 44430 (Petitioner).
Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, State Office Tower, 30 East Broad Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (For Respondent).
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Petitioner, Sean Steele (“Mr. Steele“), petitions this court to issue a writ of habeas corpus to Respondent, Brandeshawn Harris, Warden of Trumbull Correctional Institution (“Respondent“). Mr. Steele contends the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to try and convict him because his bindover from juvenile court was improper. Respondent, in turn, filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that because Mr. Steele already raised this issue on direct appeal, it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
History
{¶3} The facts pertinent to Mr. Steele‘s petition are neatly summarized in his first appeal, State v. Steele, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 00AP-499, 2001 WL 721806 (June 28, 2001), appeal not accepted, 93 Ohio St.3d 1459 (2001) (“Steel I“), and are as follows:
{¶4} In 1999, Mr. Steele was charged in juvenile court for the murder of his girlfriend and her unborn child. He was fifteen years old at the time. Id. at *1. Pursuant to former
{¶5} The case was then tried before a jury in the General Division of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, and on March 31, 2000, the jury found Mr. Steele not guilty of aggravated murder but guilty of murder as to both victims. Id. at *4. Mr. Steele
{¶6} Among Mr. Steele‘s various assignments of errors on appeal in Steele I, he challenged the juvenile branch‘s decision to bind over his case to the general division because the trial court did not separately analyze how “he individually would react to rehabilitation in the juvenile system.” Id. at *4. The Tenth District Court of Appeals found that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction over Mr. Steele because the juvenile court addressed “a myriad of relevant factors, including [Mr. Steele‘s] background and psychological evaluation.” Id. at *5. Ultimately, however, the trial court found that “the severity of the offenses alleged, the age of appellant (almost sixteen), and the applicability of two of [the former]
{¶7} Mr. Steele then appealed his resentencing, which the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed in State v. Steele, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 02AP-258, 2002-Ohio-7353, appeal not accepted, 98 Ohio St.3d 1540, 2003-Ohio-1946 (“Steele II“).
{¶8} Mr. Steele filed the instant petition for habeas corpus seeking immediate release. Specifically, he argues the trial court was without subject matter jurisdiction for three reasons: (1) the juvenile court should have attempted rehabilitation before binding
{¶9} Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment in response, arguing there is no genuine issue of material fact since the issue petitioner raises - that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the juvenile court‘s improper bindover - is barred by the doctrine of res judicata because it was raised on direct appeal. Mr. Steele, in turn, filed a “motion in opposition to respondent‘s motion for summary judgment,” as well as an “affidavit of additional facts.” Attached to the affidavit were the juvenile court‘s judgment entry finding Mr. Steele not amenable to rehabilitation as a juvenile and the trial court‘s findings after the second phase of the amenability hearing.
Law and Analysis
{¶10} A writ of habeas corpus is a civil action under Ohio law. Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-5533, ¶7. Therefore, “[t]he Civil Rules may apply to habeas cases where not ‘clearly inapplicable’ by their nature.” Gaskins v. Shiplevy, 74 Ohio St.3d 149, 150 (1995) (“Gaskins I“), quoting Pegan v. Crawmer, 73 Ohio St.3d 607, 608 (1995).
{¶11} On summary judgment, we are required to determine whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether [Respondent] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Henry v. Kohl‘s Dept. Stores, Inc., 11th Dist. Lake No. 2018-L-113, 2019-Ohio-2094,
{¶12} “Since summary judgment denies the party his or her ‘day in court’ it is not to be viewed lightly as docket control or as a ‘little trial‘. The jurisprudence of summary judgment standards has placed burdens on both the moving and the nonmoving party. In Dresher v. Burt [75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996)], the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the moving party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion and identifying those portions of the record before the trial court that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element of the nonmoving party‘s claim. The evidence must be in the record or the motion cannot succeed. The moving party cannot discharge its initial burden under Civ.R. 56 simply by making a conclusory assertion that the nonmoving party has no evidence to prove its case but must be able to specifically point to some evidence of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C) that affirmatively demonstrates that the nonmoving party has no evidence to support the nonmoving party‘s claims.” Id. at ¶17, quoting Welch v. Ziccarelli, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2006-L-229, 2007-Ohio-4374, ¶40.
{¶13} “If the moving party fails to satisfy its initial burden, the motion for summary judgment must be denied. If the moving party has satisfied its initial burden, the nonmoving party has a reciprocal burden outlined in the last sentence of Civ.R. 56(E) to set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. If the nonmoving party fails to do so, summary judgment, if appropriate shall be entered against the nonmoving party based on the principles that have been firmly established in Ohio for quite some time in Mitseff v. Wheeler (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 112.” Id. at ¶18, quoting Welch at ¶40.
{¶15} When alleging a trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the habeas corpus petitioner must establish the lack of jurisdiction was “patent and unambiguous.” Ross v. Saros, 99 Ohio St.3d 412, 2003–Ohio–4128, ¶14, citing Agee v. Russell, 92 Ohio St.3d 540, 544 (2001).
{¶16} This court has previously explained the concept of a “patent and unambiguous” lack of jurisdiction:
{¶17} “[I]f there [is] no set of facts under which a trial court * * * could have jurisdiction over a particular case, the alleged jurisdictional defect will always be considered patent and unambiguous. On the other hand, if the court * * * generally has subject matter jurisdiction over the type of case in question and [its] authority to hear that specific action [depends] on the specific facts before [it], the jurisdictional defect is not
{¶18} “These requirements have been applied to habeas corpus petitions that allege unlawful restraint due to an improper bindover.” Id. at ¶11; see, e.g., Gaskins I, supra; State ex rel. Harris v. Anderson, 76 Ohio St.3d 193 (1996); Fryerson II, supra; In re Baker v. Stewart, 116 Ohio App.3d 580 (10th Dist.1996); and Snitzky, supra. Again, habeas corpus may lie only when the challenged bindover procedure is void, such that the trial court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction. Id.; see In re Fryerson, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 97–BA–38, 1997 WL 728564, *3-4 (Oct. 24, 1997) (“Fryerson I “); see also Stallings v. Mitchell, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 97–T–0010, 1997 WL 665978, *4 (Oct. 10, 1997), citing Gaskins II, supra (“the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that such a writ will not lie when the bindover judgment shows that the juvenile court followed the correct procedure“).
{¶19} As noted above, the Tenth District reviewed Mr. Steele‘s argument challenging the juvenile court‘s bindover to the court of common pleas. Mr. Steele “may not use habeas corpus to gain successive appellate reviews of the same issue.” Smith v. Bradshaw, 109 Ohio St.3d 50, 2006-Ohio-1829, ¶15, quoting State ex rel. Rash v. Jackson, 102 Ohio St.3d 145, 2004-Ohio-2053, ¶12; compare Citicasters Co. v. Stop 26-Riverbend, Inc., 147 Ohio App.3d 531, 2002-Ohio-2286, ¶33 (7th Dist.), quoting Squires v. Squires, 12 Ohio App.3d 138, 141 (12th Dist.1983) (“‘once [a] jurisdictional issue has been fully litigated and determined by a court that has authority to pass upon the issue,
{¶20} As for Mr. Steele‘s first argument, the Tenth District in Steele I, supra, specifically discussed the juvenile court‘s consideration of Mr. Steele‘s rehabilitation, noting that the juvenile court did consider that as well as his lack of a prior record. Id. at *2, 5. The juvenile court also considered numerous other factors, including the seriousness of the crime. Id. at *2. The evidence reflected that these were planned acts. Id. Mr. Steele lured the victim to a killing field, committed the acts without provocation, and concealed his acts until confronted. Id. Further, two of the five factors specifically delineated in former
{¶21} Likewise, we find little merit in Mr. Steele‘s argument that being tried and sentenced as an adult violates Apprendi, supra, by sentencing him to more than, as he contends, the “statutory maximum penalty for a child, in any case,” which “is the commitment to the Department of youth services ‘until the age of 21.‘” It is well established that “[t]here is nothing in the United States or Ohio Constitutions that guarantees a juvenile the right to be tried in juvenile court. Certainly, neither the framers of the Ohio Constitution in 1851, nor the ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, contemplated that the clauses would have any application to juvenile-bindover proceedings.” (Citation omitted.) State v. McKinney, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-140743 & C-140744, 2015-Ohio-4398, ¶21, citing In re Agler, 19 Ohio St.2d 70, 73 (1969). It has been widely understood that bindover proceedings do not implicate a fundamental right.
{¶22} We also find no weight in Mr. Steele‘s third and last argument that he was tried before a jury with a presumption of guilt due to a finding of probable cause by the juvenile court. “[A] probable cause hearing held before a juvenile court‘s transfer to adult court is a preliminary non-adjudicatory proceeding[.]” (Citations omitted.) State v. Starling, 2d Clark No. 2018-CA-34, 2019-Ohio-1478, ¶26. “This proceeding is nonadjudicatory because ‘the juvenile court‘s function is not to determine whether the juvenile is guilty of the charge[,] but is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe the juvenile is guilty.‘” (Citations omitted.) Id. See also State v. Whisenant, 127 Ohio App.3d 75, 85 (11th Dist.1998) (Bindover proceedings are not adjudicatory in nature because the juvenile‘s guilt or innocence is not at issue).
{¶23} We agree with Respondent that Mr. Steele‘s assertions are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and further, are without merit. Since Mr. Steele has raised no genuine issue of material fact, Respondent‘s motion for summary judgment is granted and Mr. Steele‘s petition is dismissed.
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, P.J., TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., MARY JANE TRAPP, J., concur.