State v. Hudson
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 1435 |
| Decision Date | 04 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2020-1111 |
| Parties | The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Hudson, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Submitted December 7, 2021
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County, No. 2017 MA 0080, 2020-Ohio-3577.
Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ralph M Rivera, Edward A. Czopur, and Caitlyn A. Andrews, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
John P. Laczko, L.L.C., and John P. Laczko, for appellant.
{¶ 1} In this discretionary appeal from a judgment of the Seventh District Court of Appeals, we are asked to decide whether the general division of a common pleas court has jurisdiction over an offender who was arrested at the age of 20 for felonious acts he allegedly committed as a juvenile. We hold that it does not.
{¶ 2} Appellant, Frankie Hudson Jr., was first indicted in the general division of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court and arrested at the age of 20 for acts he allegedly committed when he was 17 years old-acts that would have been felonies if they had been committed by an adult. R.C 2152.02(C)(3) and 2151.23(I) provide that when a person under the age of 18 commits an act that would be a felony if it had been committed by an adult and that person is not taken into custody until after he turns 21 years old, the juvenile court does not have jurisdiction over the case. Appellee, the state, recognized that because Hudson had been only 20 years old at the time of the original indictment, the general division did not have jurisdiction over him under R.C. 2152.02(C)(3) and 2151.23(I), so it moved to dismiss the indictment. Hudson was 22 years old by the time the original indictment was dismissed, and because he was then over 21 years old, the state reindicted him in the general division on the same day.
{¶ 3} But the dismissal of the defective indictment and the subsequent reindictment did not cure the jurisdictional defect. We hold that under the plain and unambiguous language of R.C. 2152.02(C)(3) and 2151.23(I), the jurisdiction of the general division is not invoked when a person under the age of 21 is taken into custody for acts committed as a juvenile that would be felonies if committed by an adult. The juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction over such a person. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.
{¶ 4} On August 15, 2013, a few months before Hudson turned 21, he was indicted by the Mahoning County Grand Jury on six counts in case No. 2013 CR 00828. The parties agree that the first three counts of the indictment stemmed from an incident that occurred when Hudson was 17 years old and that the remaining counts of the indictment related to a second incident that occurred when Hudson was 18 years old.
{¶ 5} The first three counts of the indictment (stemming from the incident that occurred when Hudson was a juvenile) were: aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A), an unspecified felony, with a firearm specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.145(A) (count one); aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), a first-degree felony, with a firearm specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.145(A) (count two); and possessing a weapon while under a disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2)(B), a second-degree felony (count three). The remaining counts four through six of the indictment (stemming from the incident that occurred when Hudson was an adult) were: aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A), an unspecified felony (count four); aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), a first-degree felony (count five); and possessing a weapon while under a disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2)(B), a second-degree felony (count six).
{¶ 6} The parties do not dispute that Hudson was arrested on August 19, 2013. The trial court set a bond that Hudson could not post, so he remained in custody.
{¶ 7} Concerning the counts stemming from the incident that occurred when Hudson was an adult, Hudson was acquitted of aggravated murder (count four) and aggravated robbery (count five) but was found guilty of possessing a weapon while under a disability (count six). The trial court sentenced Hudson to a mandatory 36-month term of incarceration.
{¶ 8} On November 12, 2015, the state, recognizing that the original indictment was jurisdictionally defective pursuant to R.C. 2152.02(C)(3) and 2151.23(I), moved to dismiss the first three counts without prejudice. The trial court granted the state's motion to dismiss. The Mahoning County Grand Jury immediately reindicted Hudson-under case No. 2015 CR 1133-for the same acts he allegedly committed when he was 17 years old. Hudson was 22 years old at the time of the reindictment.
{¶ 9} On July 14, 2016, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment with additional charges. Criminal-gang specifications were added to counts one and two, and two charges each for attempted murder and witness intimidation, allegedly committed when Hudson was over the age of 18, were added as well.
{¶ 10} Hudson moved to dismiss the superseding indictment, arguing that the general division of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The state opposed the motion. The trial court denied Hudson's motion to dismiss.
{¶ 11} Hudson and the state then reached a plea agreement. The state agreed to amend count one to involuntary manslaughter, dismiss the attempted-murder and witness-intimidation counts and the criminal-gang specifications, and recommend a prison sentence of 15 years. In exchange, Hudson agreed to plead no contest to the remaining counts (all of which stemmed from the crimes Hudson committed when he was a juvenile).
{¶ 12} The trial court accepted Hudson's no-contest plea. He was subsequently sentenced to the recommended prison term of 15 years, which the trial court ordered to run concurrently with the sentences Hudson was already serving in case No. 2013 CR 00828 and another, unrelated case.
{¶ 13} Hudson timely appealed to the Seventh District Court of Appeals asserting one assignment of error. State v. Hudson, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 17 MA 0080, 2020-Ohio-3577, ¶ 12. Hudson argued that the trial court's decision denying his motion to dismiss the superseding indictment was in contravention of R.C. 2152.02(C)(2) and 2151.23(I). Id. at ¶ 11. Hudson maintained that under these statutes, the general division lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because he was a juvenile when he committed the acts in counts one through three of the superseding indictment and he was taken into custody or apprehended for those charges prior to age 21. Therefore, it was his position that the juvenile division had exclusive jurisdiction. Id. at ¶ 12.
{¶ 14} The appellate court rejected Hudson's argument. Id. at ¶ 20. The court, while recognizing that Hudson was 17 years old when he allegedly committed the acts in counts one through three of the superseding indictment, found that at the time he was indicted and apprehended, he was 22 years old. Id. at ¶ 18. The court found persuasive precedent from other appellate districts that "have upheld the practice of indicting and apprehending defendants for acts committed when they were juveniles after they turn 21 years old pursuant to R.C. 2151.23(I)." Id. at ¶ 19, citing State v. Loveless, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2019-03-028, 2019-Ohio-4830, appeal not accepted, 158 Ohio St.3d 1483, 2020-Ohio-1488, 143 N.E.3d 524, State v. Taylor, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105322, 2017-Ohio-8066, and State v. Martin, 3d Dist. Mercer No. 10-14-12, 2015-Ohio-1339.
{¶ 15} Hudson sought leave to file a delayed appeal, which we allowed. 160 Ohio St.3d 1447, 2020-Ohio-5169, 156 N.E.3d 911. We accepted Hudson's sole proposition of law for review:
The trial court and the Seventh District Court of Appeals erred by overruling defendant-appellant's motion to dismiss the indictment when the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the charges brought against defendant-appellant contrary to law constituting an abuse of the trial court's discretion in contravention of R.C. 2151.23(I) and R.C. 2152.02(C)(2).
{¶ 16} Hudson argues that he was both taken into custody and apprehended prior to reaching the age of 21 for the acts he allegedly committed as a juvenile. Hudson acknowledged that generally, the dismissal of an indictment would cure a jurisdictional defect but asserted that in this instance, the defect was not cured by the superseding indictment, because he was continuously in custody. Hudson maintains that the cases the appellate court relied on are distinguishable.
{¶ 17} The state admits that the original indictment was dismissed because it was jurisdictionally defective and that Hudson was reindicted to cure the defect. It is the state's position that the defect is cured because whether a juvenile court has jurisdiction depends on the date of custody or apprehension, not the date of the commission of the crime. And, according to the state, the dismissal of a defective indictment ends consideration of the dates of custody or apprehension related to that indictment. Therefore, the state contends that jurisdiction is determined based on when Hudson was taken into custody for the second indictment, which occurred when he was 22 years old. The state argues that because Hudson was 22, the juvenile court was divested of jurisdiction under R.C. 2152.02(C)(2) and 2151.23(I).
{¶ 18} Before turning to the sole proposition of law we note that Hudson's propos...
To continue reading
Request your trial