State v. Hudson, Case No. 17 MA 0080
| Decision Date | 24 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 17 MA 0080 |
| Citation | 2020 Ohio 3577 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANKIE HUDSON, JR., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio
BEFORE: Gene Donofrio, Carol Ann Robb, David A. D'Apolito, Judges.
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
Atty. John Laczko, City Centre One, Suite 975, 100 East Federal Street, Youngstown, Ohio 44503, for Defendant-Appellant.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Frankie Hudson Jr., appeals a Mahoning County Common Pleas Court judgment denying his motion to dismiss the indictment against him on the basis that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
{¶2} On August 15, 2013, a Mahoning County Grand Jury indicted appellant in case number 2013 CR 828 on six counts from two separate incidents. Counts One, Two, and Three comprised the first incident and Counts Four, Five, and Six comprised the second incident. Count One charged appellant with aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(B)(F), an unspecified felony. Count Two charged appellant with aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1)(C), a first-degree felony. And Count Three charged appellant with possessing a firearm while under a disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2)(B), a third-degree felony. Counts One and Two also contained firearm specifications pursuant to R.C. 2941.145(A). Count Four charged appellant and a co-defendant with aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(B)(3), an unspecified felony. Count Five charged appellant and the same co-defendant with aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1)(C), a first-degree felony. And Count Six charged appellant with possessing a firearm while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2)(b), a third-degree felony.
{¶3} At the time of the first incident (Counts One, Two, and Three), appellant was 17 years old. At the time of the second incident (Counts Four, Five, and Six), appellant was 18 years old. At the time of indictment in 2013 CR 828, appellant was 20 years old.
{¶4} Appellant moved to sever the counts related to the first incident from the counts related to the second incident. The trial court granted this motion and proceeded with the counts related to the second incident. Appellant pled guilty to Count Six and proceeded to a jury trial on Counts Four and Five. A jury found appellant and his co-defendant not guilty of Counts Four and Five.
{¶5} On November 12, 2015, plaintiff-appellee, the State of Ohio, moved to dismiss Counts One, Two, and Three without prejudice. At this time, appellant was 22 years old. The trial court granted the state's motion. On the same day, a Mahoning County Grand Jury indicted appellant in case number 2015 CR 1133 on identical Counts One, Two, and Three alleging identical conduct from case number 2013 CR 838. The grand jury subsequently filed a superseding indictment maintaining Counts One, Two, and Three but adding criminal gang specifications pursuant to R.C. 2941.142(A) to Counts One and Two. The superseding indictment also added four more charges: two charges for attempted murder and two charges for witness intimidation.
{¶6} Appellant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the general division of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Appellant argued that because Counts One, Two, and Three all occurred when he was 17 years old, the matter should have been brought in the juvenile division.
{¶7} The state opposed this motion arguing that appellant was not apprehended in case number 2015 CR 1133 until he was served with the indictment, which occurred on November 13, 2015 when he was 22 years old. As appellant was 22 years old at the time he was apprehended, the state argued that the general division had subject matter jurisdiction over the charges. The trial court denied appellant's motion to dismiss.
{¶8} Appellant then filed a petition for a writ of prohibition and an alternative writ of prohibition in this court raising similar arguments as his motion to dismiss. State ex rel. Hudson v. Sweeney, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 16 MA 0127, 2016-Ohio-5468. This court held "we cannot conclude that jurisdiction is patently and unambiguously lacking" and denied the writs. Id. at ¶ 1.
{¶9} Appellant and the state reached a plea agreement. The state agreed to amend Count One to involuntary manslaughter, dismiss the two attempted murder and two witness intimidation charges, and recommend a prison sentence of 15 years. In exchange, appellant agreed to plead no contest to the amended Count One, Count Two, and Count Three. The trial court accepted appellant's no contest plea.
{¶10} On April 24, 2017, the trial court sentenced appellant to the agreed upon prison term of 15 years. The trial court ordered this sentence to run concurrently with appellant's sentence in case number 2013 CR 838 and concurrently to another nine-year sentence appellant was serving in case number 2011 CR 1282A. Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal. Appellant now raises one assignment of error.
{¶11} Appellant's sole assignment of error states:
THE TRIAL COURT 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).
{¶12} Appellant argues that the trial court did not have subject matter over Counts One, Two, and Three because he was 17 years old at the time the events giving rise to those counts occurred. Because he was 17 years old at the time of those actions, he argues that the action should have originated in the juvenile division and not the general division of the common pleas court.
{¶13} Motions to dismiss are subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. State v. Brown, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 03-MA-32, 2005-Ohio-2939, ¶ 77. But the issue appellant raises is whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction which is an issue of law and, therefore, subject to a de novo review. State v. Williams, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-06-144, 2015-Ohio-1090, ¶ 7. Thus, an abuse of discretion standard of review applies to the trial court's determination of the relevant facts and a de novo review applies to the trial court's ruling on subject matter jurisdiction.
{¶14} The relevant facts are not in dispute. At the time Counts One, Two, and Three were committed, appellant was 17 years old. At the time of indictment in case number 2013 CR 828, appellant was 20 years old. When the state dismissed Counts One, Two, and Three in case number 2013 CR 828 and refiled them in case number 2015 CR 1133, appellant was 22 years old.
{¶15} Pursuant to R.C. 2151.23(A)(1), the juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction over child delinquency proceedings. R.C. 2152.02 defines who is and who is not a "child" for juvenile court jurisdiction purposes. These definitions are, in relevant part:
{¶16} The provisions of R.C. 2152.02(C)(3) are also present in R.C. 2151.23(I). This statute provides that if a person who is under 18 years of age allegedly commits an...
To continue reading
Request your trial