[Cite as Lakewood v. Jackson, 2011-Ohio-1921.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 94933

CITY OF LAKEWOOD

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs. 

ERIC JACKSON

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: 

VACATED 

Criminal Appeal from the 

Lakewood Municipal Court 

Case No. 2010 CRB 00188 

 BEFORE: Blackmon, P.J., Boyle, J., and E. Gallagher, J. 

 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 21, 2011

-i-
2

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Matthew M. Nee 

The Law Office of Matthew M. Nee 

14701 Detroit Avenue, Suite 700 

Lakewood, Ohio 44107 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Richard A. Neff 

Chief Prosecutor 

City of Lakewood 

By: Pamela L. Roessner 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

City of Lakewood 

12650 Detroit Road 

Lakewood, Ohio 44107 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J.: 

{¶ 1} Appellant Eric Jackson (“Jackson”) appeals his conviction for 

contributing to the unruliness or delinquency of a minor. He assigns the 

following two errors for our review: 

“I. The trial court erred by convicting and sentencing Mr. 

Jackson without subject matter jurisdiction.” 
3

“II. The trial court erred by failing to inform Mr. Jackson 

of his right to counsel and by failing to ascertain whether 

Mr. Jackson intelligently waived that right.”

{¶ 2} Having reviewed the record and relevant law, we vacate 

Jackson’s conviction. The apposite facts follow. 

{¶ 3} Jackson was charged with contributing to the unruliness or 

delinquency of a minor pursuant to Lakewood Codified Ordinances 537.17. 

On the day of trial, at the prosecutor’s request, the trial court amended the 

charge to a violation of R.C. 2919.24, which was identical to the contributing 

to the unruliness or delinquency of a minor charge pursuant to the Lakewood 

ordinance. 

{¶ 4} The evidence presented at trial showed that Jackson and his 

juvenile co-defendant were walking up and down driveways in Lakewood at a 

time when the juvenile should have been in school. Jackson contended they 

were looking for a friend’s house. The trial court found Jackson guilty and 

sentenced him to 90 days in jail, with one year of probation. 

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

{¶ 5} In his first assigned error, Jackson contends his conviction should 

be vacated because the Lakewood Municipal Court was without jurisdiction to 

convict him. The City concedes this assigned error, and we agree the 

conviction should be vacated. 
4

{¶ 6} R.C. 2151.23 provides: 

“(A) The juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction 

under the Revised Code as follows: 

“* * * 

“(6) To hear and determine all criminal cases in which an 

adult is charged with a violation of * * * section 2919.24 of 

the Revised Code, provided the charge is not included in 

an indictment that also charges the alleged adult offender 

with the commission of a felony arising out of the same 

actions that are the basis of the alleged violation of * * * 

section 2919.24 of the Revised Code[.] * * *”

{¶ 7} Jackson was convicted of contributing to the unruliness and 

delinquency of a minor pursuant to R.C. 2919.24. He was not charged with 

any other felony charges for conduct arising out of the same behavior. Thus, 

pursuant to R.C. 2151.23(A)(6), the juvenile court had exclusive jurisdiction 

over the charge against Jackson. As the Third District in an analogous case 

held: “The placement of contributing to the unruliness or delinquency of a 

child in the general criminal statute does not confer upon the municipal court 

concurrent jurisdiction where the legislature specifically grants exclusive 

jurisdiction to the juvenile court.” State v. King, 3d District Nos. 15-05-02 

and 15-05-03, 2005-Ohio-6174. Thus, the municipal court clearly did not 

have jurisdiction. 

{¶ 8} Accordingly, Jackson’s first assigned error is sustained. Our 

disposition of Jackson’s first assigned error renders his second assigned error 

moot; therefore, we will not address it. App.R. 12(A)(1)(c). 
5

Judgment vacated. 

It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee his costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this 

judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to 

Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, PRESIDING JUDGE 

MARY J. BOYLE, J., and 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR