State ex rel. Hemsley v. Burnham Unruh , 128 Ohio St. 3d 307 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State ex rel. Hemsley v. Burnham Unruh, 
    128 Ohio St. 3d 307
    , 2011-Ohio-226.]
    THE STATE EX REL. HEMSLEY, APPELLANT, v. BURNHAM UNRUH,
    JUDGE, APPELLEE.
    [Cite as State ex rel. Hemsley v. Burnham Unruh,
    
    128 Ohio St. 3d 307
    , 2011-Ohio-226.]
    Prohibition — Writ sought to prevent common pleas court judge from proceeding
    on violations of community control — Judge did not patently and
    unambiguously lack jurisdiction to act — Court of appeals’ dismissal of
    complaint for writ affirmed.
    (No. 2010-1482 — Submitted January 19, 2011 — Decided January 25, 2011.)
    APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 25445.
    _____________________
    Per Curiam.
    {¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the court of appeals
    dismissing a complaint for a writ of prohibition to prevent appellee, Summit
    County Court of Common Pleas Judge Brenda Burnham Unruh, from proceeding
    on alleged violations of community control. Because Judge Burnham Unruh does
    not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to proceed, we affirm the
    judgment of the court of appeals.
    {¶ 2} In 1998, appellant, Greg H. Hemsley, pleaded guilty to felony
    offenses of grand theft, theft, and misuse of credit cards, and the common pleas
    court accepted the plea.        Judge Burnham Unruh sentenced Hemsley to an
    aggregate term of 18 months in prison.
    {¶ 3} In March 2005, Judge Burnham Unruh granted Hemsley’s motion
    for judicial release, suspended the remainder of his prison sentence, and placed
    him on community control for three years upon certain terms and conditions,
    including that the court would “consider transfer of supervision to North Carolina,
    SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
    with a plan of supervision and treatment, regular monthly payments made toward
    restitution, regular reporting to the Summit County Adult Probation Department,
    and verification of regular employment provided.” Hemsley moved to North
    Carolina with the permission of the court and the Summit County Probation
    Department.
    {¶ 4} On March 4, 2008, Judge Burnham Unruh extended the period of
    Hemsley’s community control by an additional two years. By letter dated January
    13, 2010, the common pleas court notified Hemsley that he would be arraigned on
    January 28, 2010, for alleged violations of community control, including traveling
    to Mexico in 2010 without the permission of the sentencing judge or his Summit
    County or North Carolina probation officers. Hemsley pleaded not guilty to the
    charges, and Judge Unruh continued the hearing on the alleged violations to April
    22.
    {¶ 5} At the April 22, 2010 hearing, Hemsley was served with an
    amended charge alleging new violations of his community control, including
    leaving the country and traveling to Mexico around January 6, 2010, without his
    North Carolina supervising probation officer’s approval.        Hemsley moved to
    dismiss the charges for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the term of
    community control had expired. Judge Burnham Unruh denied the motion and
    rescheduled the hearing.
    {¶ 6} Hemsley filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Summit
    County for a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Burnham Unruh from
    conducting a community-control-violation hearing and taking any further action
    in the case. The judge filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the court of
    appeals granted.
    {¶ 7} This cause is now before the court on Hemsley’s appeal as of right.
    {¶ 8} Hemsley asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his
    prohibition complaint and failing to grant the writ. Dismissal of the prohibition
    2
    January Term, 2011
    complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is
    appropriate if, after presuming the truth of all factual allegations of the complaint
    and making all reasonable inferences in Hemsley’s favor, it appears beyond doubt
    that he can prove no set of facts entitling him to the requested extraordinary writ
    of prohibition. Rosen v. Celebrezze, 
    117 Ohio St. 3d 241
    , 2008-Ohio-853, 
    883 N.E.2d 420
    , ¶ 13.
    {¶ 9} Prohibition will not issue if the party seeking extraordinary relief
    has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Mosier v.
    Fornof, 
    126 Ohio St. 3d 47
    , 2010-Ohio-2516, 
    930 N.E.2d 305
    , ¶ 2. “In the
    absence of a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court having general
    subject-matter jurisdiction can determine its own jurisdiction, and a party
    contesting that jurisdiction has an adequate remedy by appeal.” State ex rel. Plant
    v. Cosgrove, 
    119 Ohio St. 3d 264
    , 2008-Ohio-3838, 
    893 N.E.2d 485
    , ¶ 5.
    {¶ 10} For the following reasons, the judge does not patently and
    unambiguously lack jurisdiction to conduct the community-control-violation
    hearing in Hemsley’s criminal case.
    {¶ 11} First, the common pleas court has basic statutory jurisdiction to
    proceed on the charged statutory violations. “If the court imposing sentence upon
    an offender sentences the offender to any community control sanction * * *, and
    if the offender violates any condition of the sanctions, any condition of release
    under a community control sanction imposed by the court, violates any law, or
    departs the state without the permission of the court or the offender’s probation
    officer, the public or private person or entity that operates or administers the
    sanction or the program or activity that comprises the sanction shall report the
    violation or departure directly to the sentencing court * * *.”                 R.C.
    2929.15(A)(2)(b). Under R.C. 2929.15(B)(1), “[i]f the conditions of a community
    control sanction are violated or if the offender violates a law or leaves the state
    without the permission of the court or the offender’s probation officer, the
    3
    SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
    sentencing court may impose upon the violator one or more of the [specified]
    penalties,” including a prison term. The common pleas court was the sentencing
    court for Hemsley, and the Summit County Probation Department charged him
    with violating the conditions of his community-control sanction and with leaving
    North Carolina without the permission of either the court or his probation officer.
    {¶ 12} Second, the expiration in March 2010 of the five-year period of
    community control for Hemsley did not divest the common pleas court and Judge
    Burnham Unruh of subject-matter jurisdiction over the community-control-
    violation hearing. Hemsley relies on former R.C. 2951.09, which provided that at
    the termination of the probation period, “the jurisdiction of the judge or
    magistrate to impose sentence ceases and the defendant shall be discharged.” 140
    Ohio Laws, Part V, 7136, 7561. In Davis v. Wolfe (2001), 
    92 Ohio St. 3d 549
    , 
    751 N.E.2d 1051
    , we held that this provision prevented a common pleas court from
    revoking a criminal defendant’s probation and sentencing him after his
    probationary period had expired even if the revocation proceeding was initiated
    before the probationary period expired.       “Discharge is required [under this
    provision] even if the alleged probation violation occurred during the
    probationary period and could have resulted in a valid probation revocation and
    imposition of sentence if it had been timely prosecuted.” 
    Id. at 551,
    citing Kaine
    v. Marion Prison Warden (2000), 
    88 Ohio St. 3d 454
    , 455, 
    727 N.E.2d 907
    .
    {¶ 13} Former R.C. 2951.09, however, was repealed effective January 1,
    2004, before Hemsley was placed on community control. 149 Ohio Laws, Part V,
    9484, 9485. And although under R.C. 2951.011, former R.C. 2951.09 would
    apply to “a person upon whom a court imposed a sentence for a misdemeanor
    offense prior to January 1, 2004, and a person upon whom a court, on or after
    January 1, 2004, and in accordance with law existing prior to January 1, 2004,
    imposed a sentence for a misdemeanor offense that was committed prior to
    January 1, 2004,” the underlying offenses for Hemsley were felony offenses.
    4
    January Term, 2011
    Therefore, former R.C. 2951.09 and Davis are inapplicable to Hemsley. Cf. State
    v. Young, Montgomery App. No. 23679, 2010-Ohio-4145 (applying former R.C.
    2951.09 to a misdemeanant who was sentenced on an underlying offense of petty
    theft before the statute was repealed). Because R.C. 2951.09 was not applicable,
    the court was authorized to conduct proceedings on the alleged community-
    control violations even though they were conducted after the expiration of the
    term of community control, provided that the notice of violations was properly
    given and the revocation proceedings were commenced before the expiration. See
    State v. Breckenridge, Franklin App. No. 09AP-95, 2009-Ohio-3620, ¶ 7; State v.
    Semenchuk, Ross App. No. 10CA3140, 2010-Ohio-4864, ¶ 6-7. Here, the charge
    of violating community control was filed and the proceeding on the charges
    commenced before Hemsley’s community control expired in March 2010.
    {¶ 14} Finally, it is unclear whether Hemsley’s community control was
    tolled pursuant to R.C. 2951.07, which provides that “[i]f the offender under
    community control absconds or otherwise leaves the jurisdiction of the court
    without permission from the probation officer, the probation agency, or the court
    to do so, or if the offender is confined in any institution for the commission of any
    offense, the period of community control ceases to run until the time that the
    offender is brought before the court for its further action.”
    {¶ 15} Based on the foregoing, Judge Burnham Unruh does not patently
    and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to proceed on the charges that Hemsley
    violated his community control, and Hemsley has an adequate remedy by way of
    appeal and motion for stay of the court’s judgment pending appeal to raise his
    jurisdictional claim.   Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the court of
    appeals dismissing Hemsley’s complaint for extraordinary relief in prohibition.
    We also deny Hemsley’s request for oral argument.
    Judgment affirmed.
    5
    SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
    O’CONNOR, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER,
    CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
    PFEIFER, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of
    appeals.
    _____________________
    Bartek Law Office, Dennis J. Bartek, and Natalie M. Niese, for appellant.
    Sherri Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and Richard
    S. Kasay, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
    _____________________
    6