State ex rel. Borden v. Hendon

96 Ohio St. 3d 64 (Ohio 2002) · Supreme Court of Ohio · July 24, 2002

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Rico Borden’s mandamus complaint seeking release from juvenile detention and enforcement of a court of appeals remand order. The court held that habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, was the proper vehicle for seeking release from physical confinement, and that Borden had adequate remedies through appeal and contempt proceedings. It also concluded that the juvenile court had not patently and unambiguously disregarded the court of appeals’ mandate.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Moyer, C.J.; Douglas, J.; Resnick, J.; F.E. Sweeney, J.; Pfeifer, J.; Cook, J.; Lundberg Stratton, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
July 24, 2002
Procedural posture
Borden appealed as of right from the Hamilton County Court of Appeals' dismissal of his complaint seeking a writ of mandamus to compel his release from juvenile custody or compliance with the court of appeals' prior judgment.
Standard of review
Whether mandamus was appropriate was reviewed under the requirements that the relator have a clear legal right to the requested relief, the respondent have a clear legal duty to provide it, and the relator lack an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The court also considered whether the respondent had patently and unambiguously disregarded the appellate court's mandate.
Precedential value
binding
Parties
Rico Borden v. Sylvia Hendon, Robert Dugan
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

habeas corpusappellate procedureremediescriminal procedure

Practice areas

appellate procedurejuvenile lawcriminal procedureextraordinary writs

Questions Presented

  1. Whether mandamus was an appropriate action to obtain Borden's release from physical custody.
  2. Whether Borden had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law to challenge the juvenile court's compliance with the court of appeals' prior judgment.
  3. Whether the juvenile court patently and unambiguously disregarded the court of appeals' mandate.

Holdings

  1. Mandamus is not the proper action to seek release from prison or other physical confinement; habeas corpus is the proper remedy.
  2. Mandamus is unavailable when the relator has adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law, including appeal and a motion for contempt to raise a claim that a lower court violated an appellate mandate.
  3. The juvenile court did not patently and unambiguously disregard the court of appeals' prior mandate.

Key quotations

But habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the proper action through which to seek release from prison or other physical confinement. (¶ 7)
The court of appeals was in the best position to determine whether Judge Hendon acted in clear violation of its August 22, 2001 ruling, and it evidently concluded that she had not by dismissing Borden’s writ action. (¶ 9)

Factual background

Borden, a juvenile adjudicated delinquent for rape, was committed to the Ohio Department of Youth Services after the juvenile court determined that he violated the conditions of his placement at Hillcrest School. The court of appeals reversed in part, directed that he receive additional detention credit, and found insufficient support in the record for the juvenile court's probation-violation finding. On remand, the juvenile court imposed the original suspended commitment, after which Borden sought mandamus to obtain immediate release or enforcement of the appellate judgment.

Procedural history

The Hamilton County Juvenile Court adjudicated Borden delinquent for rape, initially suspended a commitment to the Ohio Department of Youth Services, and later imposed that commitment after finding that he violated the conditions of his placement. The court of appeals previously reversed in part and remanded, including for credit for detention time and further proceedings concerning the alleged probation violation. After the juvenile court entered a new commitment judgment, Borden sought mandamus in the court of appeals, which dismissed the action. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…