STEVER, APPELLANT, v. WAINWRIGHT, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
No. 2019-1041
Supreme Court of Ohio
April 15, 2020
2020-Ohio-1452
NOTICE
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-1452
STEVER, APPELLANT, v. WAINWRIGHT, WARDEN, APPELLEE.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Stever v. Wainwright, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-1452.]
Habeas corpus—Evidence refuted petitioner‘s claim that trial court had lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over case involving offense committed by petitioner when petitioner was a juvenile—Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing petition affirmed.
(No. 2019-1041—Submitted December 10, 2019—Decided April 15, 2020.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-18-25.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Stanley J. Stever, appeals the judgment of the Third District Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} In 1987, Stever was charged in the Wyandot County Court of Common Pleas with the aggravated murder of Estella Heck. Stever was a juvenile
{¶ 3} On August 27, 2018, Stever filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Third District against appellee, Lyneal Wainwright, warden of the Marion Correctional Institution, arguing that he was entitled to immediate release because the court of common pleas had lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his case since it had not commenced in the Wyandot County Juvenile Court and there had not been filed in the juvenile court a (1) complaint, (2) motion to transfer jurisdiction to the court of common pleas, (3) judgment entry finding probable cause, or (4) judgment entry transferring jurisdiction to the court of common pleas. Stever attached as evidence a letter that he had received from the deputy clerk of the juvenile court informing him that “[t]he court does not have a case in 1987 for you.”
{¶ 4} The warden filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
{¶ 5} The warden filed a return of writ, stating that Stever‘s claims were false and presenting nine exhibits showing that (1) a juvenile-delinquency complaint had been filed on June 4, 1987, (2) the juvenile court had held a detention hearing, (3) Stever had been ordered by the juvenile court to be examined by the Forensic Diagnostic Center for purposes of relinquishment of jurisdiction, and (4) a bindover hearing had been conducted on October 29, 1987 and jurisdiction had been transferred to the court of common pleas.
{¶ 7} In three propositions of law, Stever asks this court to reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
Analysis
{¶ 8} To prevail on a habeas corpus claim alleging that a trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, a habeas petitioner must establish that the lack of jurisdiction was “patent and unambiguous.” Ross v. Saros, 99 Ohio St.3d 412, 792 N.E.2d 11, ¶ 14.
{¶ 9} In proposition of law No. I, Stever argues that the court of common pleas had not acquired subject-matter jurisdiction, because he had not been placed into juvenile custody, a juvenile complaint had not been filed, and there had been no bindover hearing before his case was transferred to the court of common pleas. But the warden presented evidence proving otherwise. Thus, the court of appeals correctly determined that the premise of Stever‘s claim is false and that “the trial court did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction.” Accordingly, we reject proposition of law No. I.
{¶ 10} In proposition of law No. II, Stever argues that the court‘s failure to maintain his records in accordance with
{¶ 11}
The juvenile court shall maintain records of all official cases brought before it, including, but not limited to, an appearance docket, a journal, and, in cases pertaining to an alleged delinquent
child, arrest and custody records, complaints, journal entries, and hearing summaries.
First,
{¶ 12} In proposition of law No. III, Stever argues that the court of appeals should not have considered the nine exhibits refuting his claims, because the court‘s consideration of them violated
Judgment affirmed.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DeWINE, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., concur.
Stanley J. Stever, pro se.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Stephanie L. Watson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.