State v. J.M.D.

2023 Ohio 4158

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 17, 2023
• Docket: 2023-CA-55
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. J.M.D., 2023-Ohio-4158.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 2023-CA-55

Appellee Trial Court Case No. 2022-A-00069- v. 0A,0B

J.M.D.

Appellant DECISION AND FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY

______________________________________________________________________ PER CURIAM:

{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on our October 20, 2023, show cause order.

It appeared to this court that the order on appeal, an October 5, 2023, “Judgment Entry,”

overruling appellant J.M.D.’s motion for judicial release from a commitment of the

Department of Youth Services, was not a final order. See R.C. 2505.02 (defining final

orders). Our long-standing precedent holds that “[t]he denial of a motion for judicial

release is not a final, appealable order.” State v. Greene, 2d Dist. Greene No. 02-CA-17,

2002-Ohio 2595, ¶ 6, citing State v. Coffman, 91 Ohio St.3d 125, 126, 742 N.E.2d 644

(2001) (holding a trial court's order denying shock probation pursuant to former

2947.061(B) is not a final order); see also State v. Moore, 154 Ohio St.3d 94, 2018-Ohio-

3237, 111 N.E.3d 1146, ¶ 29 (“there is no right to judicial release; it is an act of grace by

the court”). If an order is not final, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the order on appeal.

Gen. Acc Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 44 Ohio St.3d 17, 20, 540 N.E.2d 266 (1989). {¶ 2} J.M.D. filed a response to the show cause order on November 2, 2023.

J.M.D. concedes that “judicial pardons are a grace of the court and as such are

discretionary” but argues that the trial court “utilized the incorrect statute in denying

release,” i.e., the trial court analyzed the matter under R.C. 2929.20 instead of R.C.

2152.22. Thus, J.M.D. argues that we have jurisdiction to review the trial court’s order.

{¶ 3} We are sympathetic to the argument that a prisoner has the right to have

“discretion exercised, free of prejudicial legal error, in the determination whether he will

be released from incarceration.” In re Ross, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 18847, 2001 WL

815043, *3 (July 20, 2001). That sympathy extends to delinquent youth committed to the

Department of Youth Services. For more than 20 years, we have invited the Supreme

Court to “revisit” its holding in Coffman. See State v. Reaver, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 17

CA 002, 2017-Ohio-2685, ¶ 2, fn. 1; State v. Schlosser, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26888,

2016-Ohio-731, ¶ 3; State v. McBroom, 2015-Ohio-4719, 49 N.E.3d 785, ¶ 6 (2d Dist.);

Ross at *3. Nevertheless, this court has (without fail) held that we lack jurisdiction to

review the denial of judicial release. See, e.g., State v. Anderson, 2d Dist. Montgomery

No. 29744 (Mar. 31, 2023) (repeating the call for the Supreme Court to revisit its holding

in Coffman, particularly as to allow appeal of a trial court's determination that an offender

is not statutorily eligible for judicial release when that determination is contrary to law),

citing McBroom at ¶ 11 (Hall, J., concurring).

{¶ 4} In our view, there is no legally significant difference between the finality of

an order denying judicial release under R.C. 2152.22 or R.C. 2929.20. In the context of

the criminal justice system, judicial release is an act of grace, the denial of which is

unreviewable by the court of appeals. Moore, 154 Ohio St.3d 94, 2018-Ohio-3237, 111 N.E.3d 1146, at ¶ 29. So too, in the context of the juvenile justice system, “[t]he decision

whether to grant a request for early release lies within the court's discretionary power to

strike a desired balance between the goals of confining the juvenile for purposes of

rehabilitation and the release of the juvenile to society once satisfactory progress has

been made toward rehabilitation.” In re Howard, 150 Ohio App.3d 1, 2002-Ohio-6004,

788 N.E.2d 1106, ¶ 9 (7th Dist.) (state’s appeal from grant of early release, decided under

former version of R.C. Chapter 2151), citing In re Caldwell, 76 Ohio St.3d 156, 160, 666

N.E.2d 1367 (1996). Thus, a juvenile lacks any substantial right to judicial release to court

supervision from a Department of Youth Services commitment under R.C. 2152.22(D).

The decision to grant or deny judicial release is wholly within the discretion of the juvenile

court – it is an act of grace. Accordingly, our show cause order is NOT SATISFIED. This

appeal, Greene County Appellate Case No. 2023-CA-55, is DISMISSED for lack of

jurisdiction.

{¶ 5} Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), it is hereby ordered that the Clerk of the

Greene County Court of Appeals immediately serve notice of this judgment upon all

parties and make a note in the docket of the mailing.

{¶ 6} SO ORDERED. JEFFREY M. WELBAUM, PRESIDING JUDGE

MICHAEL L. TUCKER, JUDGE

CHRISTOPHER B. EPLEY, JUDGE