In re O.V.
| Decision Date | 12 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | NO. CA2019-03-046,CA2019-03-046 |
| Citation | 2019 Ohio 4628,136 N.E.3d 544 |
| Parties | IN RE: O.V. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael Greer, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee
Ravert J. Clark, 114 East 8th Street, The Citadel Suite 400, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, for appellant
{¶ 1} Appellant, O.V., appeals the decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, adjudicating him a delinquent child for committing acts that if charged as an adult would constitute gross sexual imposition. For the reasons outlined below, and finding the juvenile court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, the juvenile court's decision adjudicating O.V. a delinquent child is reversed and vacated, and O.V. is discharged.
{¶ 2} On August 23, 2018, a complaint was filed with the juvenile court alleging O.V. was a delinquent child for committing acts that if charged as an adult would constitute three counts of gross sexual imposition. Based on a joint stipulation of facts, the charges arose after O.V., who was then age 15, had sexual contact with his eight-year-old cousin while the two were on a family trip in New York. There is no dispute that all sexual contact between O.V. and his cousin took place in New York, not Ohio. There is also no dispute that both O.V. and his cousin reside in Butler County.
{¶ 3} On September 13, 2018, O.V. moved to dismiss the case "because of a lack of venue as no element of the charged offenses occurred in Butler County." After holding a hearing on the matter, the juvenile court denied O.V.'s motion to dismiss. The juvenile court reached this decision upon finding a "juvenile may be charged where he has a residence or legal settlement[.]" Therefore, because there was no dispute that O.V. resided in Butler County, the juvenile court determined that it had "jurisdiction to proceed" with the case.
{¶ 4} On February 1, 2019, the juvenile court adjudicated O.V. a delinquent child based on the jointly stipulated facts set forth above. Approximately one month later, on March 7, 2019, the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing. Following this hearing, the juvenile court issued its dispositional decision placing O.V. on community control subject to "intensive probation." The juvenile court also ordered O.V. to complete a sex offender treatment program and 20 hours of community service. O.V. then appealed.
{¶ 5} On appeal, O.V. raised a single assignment of error challenging the juvenile court's decision denying his motion to dismiss. The state filed an answer brief refuting O.V.'s claim. But, rather than stopping there, the state continued and acknowledged that while Butler County may be a proper venue to file a complaint, there was nevertheless a question as to whether the juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed since all sexual contact between O.V. and his cousin took place in New York, not Ohio. Finding the answer to that question dispositive in this case, we will address only whether the juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate O.V. a delinquent child without rendering any opinion on whether the juvenile court erred by denying O.V.'s motion to dismiss.
{¶ 6} "Subject-matter jurisdiction involves a court's power to hear a case." State v. Walston , 12th Dist. Butler, 2019-Ohio-1699, 136 N.E.3d 21, ¶ 8, citing State v. Mbodji , 129 Ohio St.3d 325, 2011-Ohio-2880, 951 N.E.2d 1025, ¶ 10. Subject-matter jurisdiction "may not be conferred by agreement of the parties or waived, and is the basis for mandatory, sua sponte dismissal either at the trial court or on appeal." In re B.M. , 4th Dist. Hocking, 2017-Ohio-7878, 98 N.E.3d 9, ¶ 8, citing Keeley v. Stoops , 7th Dist. Belmont No. 13 BE 23, 2014-Ohio-4161, 2014 WL 4672480, ¶ 10. "[S]ubject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the parties to the case or otherwise" Critzer v. Critzer , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90679, 2008-Ohio-5126, 2008 WL 4436777, ¶ 8. " ‘An appellate court reviews de novo a [juvenile] court's determination regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, that is whether the [juvenile] court has or lacks jurisdiction in the first place[.]’ " In re S.C.R. , 12th Dist. Clinton, 2018-Ohio-4063, 121 N.E.3d 10, ¶ 12, quoting Powers-Urteaga v. Urteaga , 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2014-08-109, 2015-Ohio-2465, 2015 WL 3824396, ¶ 15.
{¶ 7} Pursuant to R.C. 2152.021(A)(1), any person having knowledge of a child who appears to be a delinquent child "may file a sworn complaint with respect to that child in the juvenile court of the county in which the child has a residence or legal settlement or in which the * * * delinquent act allegedly occurred." Similarly, in accordance with Juv.R. 10(A), any person having knowledge of a child who appears to be a delinquent, unruly, neglected, dependent, or abused child "may file a complaint with respect to the child in the juvenile court of the county in which the child has a residence or legal settlement, or in which the * * * delinquency, unruliness, neglect, dependency, or abuse occurred." Therefore, because O.V. resides in Butler County, it would seem that both R.C. 2152.021(A)(1) and Juv.R. 10(A) would provide the juvenile court with both personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed in this case.
{¶ 8} However, pursuant to R.C. 2152.02(E)(1), a "delinquent child" is defined as "[a]ny child * * * who violates any law of this state or the United States, or any ordinance of a political subdivision of the state , that would be an offense if committed by an adult[.]" (Emphasis added.) Here, as noted above, all sexual contact between O.V. and his cousin occurred in New York, not Ohio. Therefore, because all sexual contact occurred in a state other than Ohio, O.V. did not violate a law of this state. O.V. also did not violate a law of the United States or any ordinance of any political subdivision of this state. O.V. instead violated a law of New York. See, e.g. , N.Y. Penal Law 130.75(1)(a) (). Accordingly, because O.V. did not violate a law of this state, we find that the juvenile court did not have subject-matter to adjudicate O.V. a delinquent child, thereby rendering the juvenile court's decision adjudicating O.V. a delinquent child void.
{¶ 9} This case appears to present an issue of first impression in Ohio. So, without any direct guidance from the Ohio General Assembly, the Ohio Supreme Court, or any other Ohio district court of appeals, we hold that an Ohio juvenile court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a child a delinquent child for acts that if charged as an adult would constitute a violation of any Ohio law when all of the alleged acts occurred in a state other than Ohio. While not at issue in this appeal, we believe the same would hold true as it relates to a child's alleged acts occurring in a state other than Ohio that if charged as an adult would constitute a violation of any ordinance of any Ohio political subdivision. An Ohio juvenile court, however, would have subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a child a delinquent child for acts that if charged as an adult would constitute a violation of any law of the United States. This is because the laws of the United States apply equally to all 50 states, thereby making it immaterial in which state or states the alleged acts occurred.
{¶ 10} Although contained within Ohio's criminal code, we find this holding comports with the jurisdictional guidelines set forth by the General Assembly under R.C. 2901.11(A) as it relates to alleged adult criminal offenders. Pursuant to that statute, a person is subject to criminal prosecution and punishment in Ohio for acts that occurred while that person was outside of Ohio only if:
{¶ 11} Because this case arose out of O.V.'s sexual contact with his eight-year-old cousin while the two were on a family trip in New York, none of the four factual scenarios in R.C. 2901.11(A) apply to the case at bar. O.V., therefore, would not have been subject to criminal prosecution and punishment in Ohio for his acts that occurred while he was in New York even if O.V. had been an adult at the time of the offense.
{¶ 12} "Jurisdiction over all crimes and offenses is vested in the general division of the court of common pleas, unless such jurisdiction is specifically and exclusively vested in other divisions of the court of common pleas or in the lower courts." State v. Walls , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA99-10-174, 2000 WL 1818567, *3 (Dec. 11, 2000), citing State ex rel....
To continue reading
Request your trial