Case Name: The State ex rel. R.W., Appellant, v. Sweeney, Judge, Appellee; The State ex rel. R.W., Appellant, v. Sweeney, Judge, et al., Appellees
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2010-02-02
Citations: 124 Ohio St. 3d 414
Docket Number: Nos. 2009-1624 and 2009-1626
Parties: The State ex rel. R.W., Appellant, v. Sweeney, Judge, Appellee. The State ex rel. R.W., Appellant, v. Sweeney, Judge, et al., Appellees.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 124
Pages: 414–415

Head Matter:
The State ex rel. R.W., Appellant, v. Sweeney, Judge, Appellee. The State ex rel. R.W., Appellant, v. Sweeney, Judge, et al., Appellees.
[Cite as State ex rel. R.W. v. Sweeney, 124 Ohio St.3d 414, 2010-Ohio-223.]
(Nos. 2009-1624 and 2009-1626
Submitted January 26, 2010
Decided February 2, 2010.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying writs of prohibition and mandamus to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Judge Kristen W. Sweeney, to release appellant, juvenile delinquent R.W., from home detention and to terminate any future dispositional hearings. We also affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of habeas corpus to compel appellees, Judge Sweeney, the juvenile court administrator, and the detention-services supervisor to release R.W. from home detention.
{¶ 2} Prohibition and mandamus are not the appropriate remedies for release from physical confinement. See, e.g., State ex rel. Key v. Spicer (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 469, 746 N.E.2d 1119; State ex rel. Elko v. Suster, 110 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-4248, 852 N.E.2d 731, ¶ 4.
{¶ 3} Furthermore, Judge Sweeney did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction over R.W. when R.W. served three days in secure detention after he admitted to three misdemeanors, because the time served in detention was not manifestly a final dispositional sentence. See Juv.R. 7. As the court of appeals observed, the order failed to make any reference to a final disposition, and a subsequent order more than a year later referred to a disposition of the case. R.W. thus had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law from the subsequent dispositional order to raise the jurisdictional claim. He is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus to compel his release from home detention. See In re Complaint for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Goeller, 103 Ohio St.3d 427, 2004-Ohio-5579, 816 N.E.2d 594, ¶ 6 ("Like other extraordinary-writ actions, habeas corpus is not available when there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law"); State ex rel. Mowen v. Mowen, 119 Ohio St.3d 462, 2008-Ohio-4759, 895 N.E.2d 163, ¶ 12 (in the absence of a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction on the part of the juvenile court, habeas corpus petitioner had an adequate remedy at law by appeal from any potentially adverse judgment to raise jurisdictional claim).
Robert L. Tobik, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Cullen Sweeney, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.
Judgments affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
. We deny appellant's renewed motion to supplement the record. See Dzina v. Celebrezze, 108 Ohio St.3d 385. 2006-Ohio-1195, 843 N.E.2d 1202. ¶ 16.