State v. Wilson, 94-1272

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Citation: 73 Ohio St.3d 40,652 N.E.2d 196
• Docket Number: No. 94-1272,94-1272
• Parties: The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. WILSON, Appellee.
• Decision Date: 09 August 1995

Page 40

73 Ohio St.3d 40 652 N.E.2d 196 The STATE of Ohio, Appellant,
v.
WILSON, Appellee. No. 94-1272. Supreme Court of Ohio. Submitted June 6, 1995.
Decided Aug. 9, 1995. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1. Absent a proper bindover procedure pursuant to R.C. 2151.26, the juvenile court has the exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over any case concerning a

Page 41

child who is alleged to be a delinquent. (R.C. 2151.23, 2151.25 and 2151.26[E], applied.)

2. The exclusive subject matter jurisdiction of the juvenile court cannot be waived.

[652 N.E.2d 197] On December 1, 1980, Edward D. Becker filed a report with the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department, asserting that someone had stolen some items of his personal property during October and November of that year. On December 4, 1980, a deputy sheriff arrested appellee, Glen W. Wilson, after all of the missing items were recovered from Wilson's apartment. On February 3, 1981, the grand jury of Hamilton County charged Wilson with grand theft and receiving stolen property worth $150 or more, both fourth degree felonies. Both counts of the indictment asserted that Wilson committed the offenses on or about December 2, 1980.

Wilson, who was represented by counsel, appeared before the general division of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas and entered a plea of no contest to the charge of theft in exchange for the state's dismissal of the charge of receiving stolen property. The court of common pleas found Wilson guilty of grand theft and sentenced him to be imprisoned for two to five years. Wilson did not appeal. After Wilson had served about sixty days of his sentence, the trial court, pursuant to R.C. 2947.061, suspended Wilson's sentence and placed him on shock probation, which he successfully completed.

On April 19, 1993, about twelve years after he was convicted, Wilson, pursuant to R.C. 2953.21, filed with the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas a motion to vacate his judgment of conviction. ¹ In his motion, Wilson asserted for the first time that his judgment of conviction was a nullity because the court of common pleas did not have jurisdiction over him when it found him guilty of theft. Wilson argued that the juvenile court had exclusive jurisdiction over him because he was only seventeen years of age when he stole Becker's property. To support

Page 42

his argument, Wilson attached to his motion an affidavit signed by Becker, stating that the personal items had been stolen sometime between October 1, 1980 and November 16, 1980. Wilson, who was born on November 23, 1962, had not turned eighteen years of age until November 23, 1980.

The court of common pleas denied Wilson's motion to vacate his judgment of conviction, [652 N.E.2d 198] finding that he had waived the issue of jurisdiction by failing to raise it before seeking postconviction relief. Upon appeal, the Hamilton County Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause with instructions to vacate the judgment of conviction against Wilson. The court of appeals held that the general division of the court of common pleas lacked subject matter jurisdiction to convict Wilson. The court explained that the bindover procedure described in R.C. 2151.26 provides the only way in which a juvenile court can relinquish its exclusive original jurisdiction over a juvenile.

Finding its judgment in conflict with the Ninth District Court of Appeals' decision in State v. Tillman (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 464, 585 N.E.2d 550, the court of appeals entered an order certifying a conflict. This cause is now before this court upon our determination that a conflict exists.

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Pros. Atty., and L. Susan Laker, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellant.

Peter Rosenwald, Cincinnati, for appellee.

WRIGHT, Justice.

The issues certified to this court are: (1) "In the absence of a bindover from juvenile court pursuant to R.C. 2151.26, does the general division of the common pteas [sic ] court have jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence a juvenile defendant?" and (2) "In the absence of the bindover, can the juvenile court jurisdiction be waived?" We answer both of these queries in the negative.

The general subject matter jurisdiction of Ohio courts of common pleas is defined entirely by statute pursuant to Section 4(B), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, which states that "[t]he courts of common pleas and divisions thereof shall have such original jurisdiction over all justiciable matters * * * as may be provided by law." With regard to criminal cases, R.C. 2931.03 provides: "The court of common pleas has original jurisdiction of all crimes and offenses, except in cases of minor offenses the exclusive jurisdiction of which is vested in courts inferior to the court of common pleas." However, the General Assembly has allocated certain subject matters to the exclusive original jurisdiction of specified divisions of the courts of common pleas.

Page 43

R.C. 2151.07 creates Ohio's juvenile courts, which are divisions of the courts of common pleas. ² R.C. 2151.23 provides:

"(A) The juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction under the Revised Code:

"(1) Concerning any child who on or about the date specified in the complaint is alleged to be * * * a delinquent * * * child." ³ (Emphasis added.)

R.C. 2151.25 states: "When a child is arrested under any charge, complaint, affidavit, or indictment, whether for a felony or a misdemeanor, proceedings regarding such child shall be initially in the juvenile court in accordance with this chapter. If the child is taken before a * * * judge of the court of common pleas other than a juvenile court, such * * * judge of the court of common pleas shall transfer the case to the juvenile court, whereupon proceedings shall be in accordance with this chapter. Upon such transfer all further proceedings under the charge, complaint, information, or indictment shall be...