From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gaskins v. Shiplevy

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 6, 1995
74 Ohio St. 3d 149 (Ohio 1995)

Summary

holding the defendant's claim of error in a bindover proceeding survived his guilty plea

Summary of this case from State v. Amos

Opinion

No. 95-879

Submitted September 12, 1995 —

Decided December 6, 1995.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. CA95030015.

Keith A. Gaskins, pro se.


We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause.

Insofar as the court of appeals held that appellant's double jeopardy claim did not state a cause of action in habeas corpus, we agree. Wenzel v. Enright, supra. However, the court of appeals disregarded appellant's motion to add the improper bindover claim. Civ.R. 15(A) states in part:

"A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served * * *."

The Civil Rules may apply to habeas cases where not "clearly inapplicable" by their nature. Pegan v. Crawmer (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 607, 608, 653 N.E.2d 659, 660. We do not find Civ.R. 15(A) clearly inapplicable to habeas cases. Therefore, we hold that the court of appeals should have allowed the motion to amend and considered the bindover issue.

On appeal, appellant argues that improper bindover deprived the common pleas court of jurisdiction. This issue was not considered by the court of appeals and appears to have facial merit. Appellant states, among other things, that in November 1983 he was unrepresented by counsel at a juvenile adjudication hearing, which the court converted into a bindover hearing. Juv.R. 3 stated in 1983:

"A child's right to be represented by counsel at a hearing to determine whether the juvenile court shall relinquish its jurisdiction for purposes of criminal prosecution may not be waived."

Appellant also claims that he was given no mental and physical examination, as required by R.C. 2151.26. In the last half of 1983, R.C. 2151.26 stated in part (and still states in substance):

"After a complaint has been filed alleging that a child is a delinquent child by reason of having committed an act that would constitute a felony if committed by an adult, the court at a hearing may transfer the case for criminal prosecution to the appropriate court having jurisdiction of the offense, after making the following determinations:

"* * *

"(3) After an investigation, including a mental and physical examination of the child made by a public or private agency, or a person qualified to make the examination, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that:

"(a) He is not amenable to care or rehabilitation or further care or rehabilitation in any facility designed for the care, supervision, and rehabilitation of delinquent children;

"(b) The safety of the community may require that he be placed under legal restraint, including, if necessary, for the period extending beyond his majority." (140 Ohio Laws, Part I, 585-586.)

In State v. Wilson (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 40, 652 N.E.2d 196, we held that, without a proper bindover procedure under R.C. 2151.26, a juvenile court's jurisdiction is exclusive and cannot be waived. Id. at paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. Accordingly, we hold that appellant's amended petition stated a potentially good cause of action in habeas corpus, alleging, as it did, that the court of common pleas lacked jurisdiction over appellant because of improper bindover. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause for the court of appeals to allow the writ, require appellee to make a return, and determine whether the bindover was improper. See Hammond v. Dallman (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 666, 668, 590 N.E.2d 744, 746, fn. 7.

We are aware that Wilson was not a habeas case and that we have stated that habeas will not lie when there is an adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Pirman v. Money (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 591, 593-594, 635 N.E.2d 26, 29. Nevertheless, when a court's judgment is void because it lacked jurisdiction, habeas is still an appropriate remedy despite the availability of appeal. In re Lockhart (1952), 157 Ohio St. 192, 195, 47 O.O. 129, 131, 105 N.E.2d 35, 37, and paragraph three of the syllabus.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Gaskins v. Shiplevy

Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 6, 1995
74 Ohio St. 3d 149 (Ohio 1995)

holding the defendant's claim of error in a bindover proceeding survived his guilty plea

Summary of this case from State v. Amos

In Gaskins v. Shiplevy, 74 Ohio St.3d 149, 151, 656 N.E.2d 1282 (1995) (" Gaskins I "), this court held that a petition that alleges that a bindover was improper "state[s] a potentially good cause of action in habeas corpus."

Summary of this case from Smith v. May

In Gaskins, 74 Ohio St.3d at 150, 656 N.E.2d at 1283, the petitioner alleged that neither a mental nor a physical examination had been done prior to the bindover.

Summary of this case from State v. Golphin

In Gaskins, supra, 74 Ohio St.3d at 151, 656 N.E.2d at 1284, citing In re Lockhart (1952), 157 Ohio St. 192, 195, 47 O.O. 129, 131, 105 N.E.2d 35, 37, and paragraph three of the syllabus, we expressly held in a case where the petitioner alleged an improper bindover, that "when a court's judgment is void because it lacked jurisdiction, habeas is still an appropriate remedy despite the availability of appeal."

Summary of this case from State ex Rel. Harris v. Anderson

stating that “without a proper bindover procedure under [former] R.C. 2151.26, a juvenile court's jurisdiction is exclusive and cannot be waived”

Summary of this case from State v. Legg

In Gaskins v. Shiplevy (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 149, 656 N.E.2d 1282, the court recognized a claim in habeas corpus alleging that the court of common pleas lacked jurisdiction when it entered judgment on the petitioner's conviction because the juvenile court had failed to follow bindover procedures.

Summary of this case from In re Writ of Habeas Corpus of Baker
Case details for

Gaskins v. Shiplevy

Case Details

Full title:KEITH A. GASKINS v. CAROL SHIPLEVY

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Dec 6, 1995

Citations

74 Ohio St. 3d 149 (Ohio 1995)
656 N.E.2d 1282

Citing Cases

Smith v. May

{¶ 17} Smith alleges that he is entitled to habeas relief because the juvenile court did not conduct "a…

State ex Rel. Fryerson v. Tate

First, appellant asserts that a habeas corpus petition alleging that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction…