STATE v. SWEENEY (2010)

 {¶ 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 he served three days in secure detention after he admitted to committing 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 his 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).¹

Judgments affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   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.

PER CURIAM.

MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'CONNOR, O'DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.