Summary
In Torres, the petitioner filed a complaint in prohibition immediately after the bindover, seeking to prevent the trial division from trying him.
Summary of this case from In re Writ of Habeas Corpus of BakerOpinion
No. 81-833
Decided December 9, 1981.
Prohibition — To prevent trial court from exercising jurisdiction — Complaint dismissed, when — Adequate remedy by way of appeal available.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Wood County.
On November 14, 1980, appellant, Dan L. Torres, was arrested and charged with delinquency in connection with the rape of a Bowling Green State University student. At the time of his arrest, appellant was 16 years of age.
The prosecuting attorney moved that jurisdiction over appellant be transferred to the Trial Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Wood County and, on November 24, 1980, a preliminary hearing was held on the motion in the Juvenile Court Division. The Juvenile Court found probable cause to believe that appellant committed the act as alleged and that such act would constitute a felony if committed by an adult. Upon so finding, the Juvenile Court continued its proceedings and referred appellant to the Ohio Youth Commission for a full investigation pursuant to the requirements of R.C. 2151.26.
Following such investigation, the Juvenile Court, on December 31, 1980, determined that jurisdiction should be transferred to the trial division and so ordered. On January 28, 1981, the grand jury returned indictments charging appellant with rape and kidnapping, in violation of R.C. 2907.02 and 2905.01, respectively.
On February 18, 1981, appellant filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals seeking a writ of prohibition in effect to prevent appellee, the trial court judge, Donald D. Simmons, from exercising jurisdiction in this case. Appellee's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Mr. Adrian P. Cimerman, for appellant. Ms. Betty D. Montgomery, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Alan R. Mayberry, for appellee.
Appellant argues that prohibition will lie because the order transferring jurisdiction to the "adult division" is facially invalid and, thus, ineffective to vest jurisdiction in such court. The specific basis for appellant's argument is that the transfer order fails to state the reasons therefor. According to appellant, the Juvenile Court failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Kent v. United States (1966), 383 U.S. 541, and Ohio Juv. R. 30.
Whether the Juvenile Court's decision to transfer jurisdiction over appellant to the "adult division" was proper under the facts of this case is not a matter to be decided in the first instance by this court. We have held that "any error complained of [in a transfer order] must be raised in an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas." In re Becker (1974), 39 Ohio St.2d 84, 87.
"It is basic under our procedure that a court of general jurisdiction has the power to determine its jurisdiction in the first instance, and that prohibition cannot be used as a shortcut appeal to question this jurisdiction." State, ex rel. Erie County Democratic Executive Comm., v. Brown (1966), 6 Ohio St.2d 136, 138. Although there is an exception to this general principle, State, ex rel. Bd. of County Commrs., v. Court of Common Pleas (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 354, such exception does not apply herein.
Appellant has an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal. Therefore, the Court of Appeals was correct in dismissing the complaint for a writ of prohibition.
Judgment affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and KRUPANSKY, JJ., concur.