State ex rel. Jean–Baptiste v. Kirsch

• Decision Date: 06 December 2012
• Docket Number: No. 2011–0934.,2011–0934.
• Parties: The STATE ex rel. JEAN–BAPTISTE, Appellant, v. KIRSCH, Judge, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

134 Ohio St.3d 421

983 N.E.2d 302

The STATE ex rel. JEAN–BAPTISTE, Appellant,

v.KIRSCH, Judge, Appellee.

No. 2011–0934.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2011.

Decided Dec. 6, 2012.

Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Amanda J. Powell, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Mark E. Kuhn, Scioto County Prosecuting Attorney, and Danielle M. Parker, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

LANZINGER, J.

[Ohio St.3d 422]{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment of the court of appeals denying the claim of appellant, Pression Jean–Baptiste, for a writ of prohibition to prevent appellee, Judge James W. Kirsch of the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, from classifying him as a juvenile-offender registrant in a delinquency case after he turned 21 years old. Because the juvenile court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction to proceed with classifying Jean–Baptiste, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and grant the writ of prohibition.

I. Facts

A. Juvenile–Delinquency Case

{¶ 2} Jean–Baptiste was born in Haiti on January 18, 1989. According to Jean–Baptiste, he was brought to the United States from a Haitian orphanage in 1996 and was placed with Paula Kessler in Portsmouth, Ohio. There were no legal proceedings regarding his custody until December 2004, when the juvenile court placed him in the legal custody of Kessler.

{¶ 3} On October 19, 2006, a Scioto County assistant prosecuting attorney filed a complaint in the Scioto County Juvenile Court alleging that Jean–Baptiste, then 17 years old, appeared to be a delinquent child for committing a rape of a ten-year-old child on August 19, 2006, an offense that would be a felony of the first degree if committed by an adult. In January 2007, Jean–Baptiste admitted the allegations of the complaint, and on the day after Jean–Baptiste turned 18 years old, Judge Kirsch adjudicated him to be a delinquent child. On February 5, 2007, following a dispositional hearing, Judge Kirsch ordered that Jean–Baptiste be committed to the permanent custody of the Ohio Department of Youth Services (“DYS”) for placement in an institution for a minimum of one year and for a maximum period not to extend beyond his 21st birthday—January 18, 2010. The judge also classified Jean–Baptiste as a sexual predator and ordered him to meet the registration requirements of that classification upon his release.

{¶ 4} On appeal, the court of appeals vacated the juvenile court's sexual-predator classification based on its holding that because the court committed Jean–Baptiste to a secure facility as part of its dispositional order, the court could not classify him as a sexual predator under R.C. 2152.83(A)(1) until his release [Ohio St.3d 423]from the secure facility. In re P.B., 4th Dist. No. 07CA3140, 2007-Ohio-3937, 2007 WL 2206900. No appeal was taken from this decision.

{¶ 5} On May 23, 2008, the United States Department of Homeland Security placed an immigration detainer on Jean–Baptiste to assume custody of him. On July 17, 2008, DYS released Jean–Baptiste from its institution, and he was held in the Seneca County Jail until hearings could be conducted to determine his citizenship. In December 2009, DYS notified Judge Kirsch, the county sheriff's office, and the county prosecutor that on January 18, 2010 (Jean–Baptiste's 21st birthday), he would be discharged from the department's legal custody. Judge Kirsch had scheduled a status conference in the case for January 15, but continued it because Jean–Baptiste was still in the Seneca County Jail and would not be released until January 26, 2010. Judge Kirsch ordered that Jean–Baptiste's juvenile-offender classification hearing be held on February 8, 2010. When Jean–Baptiste was released from the Seneca County Jail, he was placed by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services at the Faith Mission residential facility.

B. Prohibition Case

{¶ 6} On February 2, 2010, Jean–Baptiste filed a complaint in the court of appeals for a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Kirsch from proceeding to classify him as a juvenile-offender registrant. Jean–Baptiste claimed that the juvenile court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to proceed because no statute authorized the court to conduct a classification hearing after he had turned 21 years old on January 18, 2010. After the court of appeals denied Judge Kirsch's motions to dismiss and for relief from judgment and for leave to renew his motion to dismiss, the parties submitted evidence and briefs.

{¶ 7} Jean–Baptiste raised the following arguments: (1) Judge Kirsch does not have jurisdiction to classify him as a juvenile-offender registrant, because he is over 21 years old and is thus not a “child” as defined in R.C. 2152.02, (2) the juvenile court lacks personal jurisdiction over him because he is over 21 years old, and (3) Judge Kirsch lacks jurisdiction to classify him because the judge failed to hold a classification hearing within a reasonable time of his release from DYS. Judge Kirsch argued in part that the court of appeals should not consider Jean–Baptiste's last argument, because it was not raised in his complaint.

{¶ 8} On April 18, 2011, the court of appeals denied the writ of prohibition. Jean–Baptiste appealed, and after briefing, we sua sponte held the case for our decision in In re J.V., 134 Ohio St.3d 1, 2012-Ohio-4961, 979 N.E.2d 1203, which was decided on October 30, 2012.¹[Ohio St.3d 424]State ex rel. P.J. v. Kirsch, 131 Ohio St.3d 1478, 2012-Ohio-955, 963 N.E.2d 156. This cause is now before the court for our consideration.

II. Legal Analysis

A. Oral Argument

{¶ 9} Jean–Baptiste has filed a motion for oral argument. He claims that oral argument is appropriate because this case involves a matter of great public importance, complex issues of law or fact, and a conflict between courts of appeals.

{¶ 10} In cases in which oral argument is not mandatory—such as direct appeals from cases originating in a court of appeals, see S.Ct.Prac.R. 9.2(A)—we have discretion to grant oral argument, and “in exercising this discretion, we consider whether the case involves a matter of great public importance, complex issues of law or fact, a substantial constitutional issue, or a conflict among courts of appeals.” State ex rel. Davis v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 111 Ohio St.3d 118, 2006-Ohio-5339, 855 N.E.2d 444, ¶ 15.

{¶ 11} Jean–Baptiste contends that this appeal involves a matter of great public importance because this court has pending cases that relate to the application of 2007 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 10 (“S.B. 10”), Ohio's version of the federal Adam Walsh Act, 42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.,see, e.g., In re D.J.S., case No. 2008–1624,² and its related cases, and because we recently held that S.B. 10, “as applied to defendants who committed sex offenses prior to its enactment, violates Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, which prohibits the General Assembly from passing retroactive laws.” State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374, 952 N.E.2d 1108, syllabus. Yet in his motion, Jean–Baptiste concedes that the litigants in In re D.J.S. and its related cases “have not raised issues” similar to those involved in this appeal. And he does not suggest that the holding in this case is governed by either Williams or In re D.J.S.

{¶ 12} Moreover, Jean–Baptiste does not specify in what respect this direct appeal in a prohibition case involves either complex issues of law or fact or what purported conflict exists between courts of appeals on the claims he raises here.

{¶ 13} Finally, the parties' briefs are sufficient for the court to resolve this appeal. See, e.g., State ex rel. Otten v. Henderson, 129 Ohio St.3d 453, 2011-Ohio-4082, 953 N.E.2d 809, ¶ 19.

{¶ 14} For all of these reasons, we deny Jean–Baptiste's motion for oral argument and proceed to address the merits.

[Ohio St.3d 425]B. Prohibition

{¶ 15} To be entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in prohibition, Jean–Baptiste had to establish that (1) Judge Kirsch was about to exercise judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power was unauthorized by law, and (3) denying the writ would result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Brady v. Pianka, 106 Ohio St.3d 147, 2005-Ohio-4105, 832 N.E.2d 1202, ¶ 7. It is uncontroverted that by ordering the February 8, 2010 juvenile-offender classification hearing, Judge Kirsch was about to exercise judicial power when Jean–Baptiste filed his prohibition action.

{¶ 16} For the remaining requirements, “[i]n the absence of a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court having general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine its own jurisdiction, and a party contesting that jurisdiction has an adequate remedy by appeal.” State ex rel. Plant v. Cosgrove, 119 Ohio St.3d 264, 2008-Ohio-3838, 893 N.E.2d 485, ¶ 5;State ex rel. Pruitt v. Donnelly, 129 Ohio St.3d 498, 2011-Ohio-4203, 954 N.E.2d 117, ¶ 2. “Prohibition will not issue if the party seeking extraordinary relief has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” State ex rel. Hemsley v. Unruh, 128 Ohio St.3d 307, 2011-Ohio-226, 943 N.E.2d 1014, ¶ 9. The dispositive issue is thus whether Jean–Baptiste established that the juvenile court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to conduct a juvenile-offender classification hearing.

C. Continuing Jurisdiction Did Not Extend to Jean–Baptiste After He Turned 21

{¶ 17} In his first proposition, Jean–Baptiste asserts that he established that the juvenile court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to conduct the February 8, 2010 classification hearing because he had turned 21 on January 18, 2010.

{¶ 18} Judge Kirsch and the juvenile court have basic statutory jurisdiction over the delinquency case under R.C. 2151.23(A)(1), which provides that the juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction “[c]oncerning any child who on or about the...