COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72905 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. : ORIGINAL ACTION LOUIS DRISCOLL : : Relator : : JOURNAL ENTRY v. : AND : OPINION CLARENCE HUNTER, : SUPERINTENDENT, CUYAHOGA : COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION : CENTER : Respondent : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MARCH 5, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS JUDGMENT: Writ Dismissed. (Motion No. 85805 to Dismiss is Granted.) DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Relator: For Respondent: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, ESQ. JAMES A. DRAPER, ESQ. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Cuyahoga County Public Defender JEFFREY I. SHERWIN, ESQ. Assistant Prosecuting Attorney SCOTT ROGER HURLEY, ESQ. The Justice Center Assistant Public Defender 1200 Ontario Street 100 Lakeside Place Cleveland, Ohio 44113 1200 West Third Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1569 KARPINSKI, J.: -2- In this action, the petitioner, Louis Driscoll, asks this court to hold that habeas corpus may be used to obtain the release of a juvenile from the detention center because the Juvenile Court has not complied with the time schedules mandated by R.C. 2151.27, 2151.28 and Juv.R. 29. The respondent, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, has moved to dismiss, and Mr. Driscoll has filed a brief in opposition. For the following reasons this court grants the respondent's motion and dismisses this writ action. The above-listed statutes and rules for processing a juvenile delinquent case provide that if an arrest is made without a complaint, then the complaint shall be filed before the end of the next day after the day on which the child is arrested. Within seventy-two hours after the complaint is filed, the court must fix the time for the adjudicatory hearing. If the child is in detention, the adjudicatory hearing shall be held not later than ten days after the filing of the complaint, but the hearing and detention may be extended upon a showing of good cause. However, the adjudicatory hearing shall not be held later than sixty days after the complaint was filed. In the present case, Mr. Driscoll asserts that this time schedule was not followed. He maintains he was arrested and put in detention on June 28, 1997, upon suspicion of assault. On July 8, 1997, he filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds the court failed to abide by the statutory schemes. On July 9, the complaint was filed alleging felonious assault, having a weapon while under disability, and a firearm specification. The juvenile court denied -3- his motion to dismiss at a hearing on July 11. He maintains he was Thus, for purposes of the Court did not abide by the statutory scheme. Nevertheless, this court declines to rule that habeas corpus may issue to obtain release from the detention center in delinquency cases when the statutory scheme is not precisely followed. R.C. 2725.05 provides the following: [i]f it appears that a person alleged to be restrained ofnot formally arrai his liberty *** under process issued by a court or magistrate, or by virtue of the judgment or order of a court of record, and the court or magistrate had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ of habeas corpus shall not be allowed. Additionally, Juv.R. 29(A) provides in pertinent part as follows: The failure of the court to hold an adjudicatory hearing within any time period set forth in this rule does not affect the ability of the court to issue any order otherwise provided for in statute or rule and does not provide any basis for contesting the jurisdiction of the court or the validity of any order of the court. The courts have generally held, moreover, that the failure to abide by procedural limitations does not divest a court of jurisdiction. Linger v. Weiss (1979), 57 Ohio St.2d 97, 386 N.E.2d 1354, cert. denied (1979), 444 U.S. 862; In re Palmer (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 1 A review of the Juvenile Court file reveals that on August 12, 1997, at a pretrial the juvenile court released Mr. Driscoll from detention and ordered him into a secure shelter care facility. On September 2, 1997, the Juvenile Court found him delinquent when he admitted to aggravated assault after the state amended its first complaint from felonious assault to aggravated assault. The complaints for having a weapon under disability and firearm specification were nolled. The Juvenile Court committed him to the Ohio Department of Youth Services, but suspended the commitment and placed him on intensive probation. -4- 194, 465 N.E.2d 1312, cert. denied (1985), 469 U.S. 1167; and In re Smith(1990), 64 Ohio App.3d 773, 582 N.E.2d 1117. In his brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss, Mr. Driscoll concedes that the Juvenile Court has jurisdiction in this matter. Because the trial court has jurisdiction, therefore, habeas corpus should not issue. Additionally,habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy and is not available when there is an adequate remedy at law, e.g., appeal. Moreover, habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Luchene v. Wagner (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 37, 465 N.E.2d 395. In the present case, appeal provides or provided an adequate remedy to contest the propriety of any delays or failures on the part of the trial. Indeed, In re Carlos O. (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 252, 644 N.E.2d 1084, upon which Mr. Driscoll relies, indicates that appeal offers a full and adequate remedy in cases such as his. In that case the court of appeals ruled that an adjudicatory hearing held more than two weeks after the complaint was filed against a juvenile required dismissal of the complaint with prejudice. Accordingly, in the case at bar because appeal provides an adequate remedy at law, habeas corpus will not issue. State ex rel. Frazier v. Administrator/Director Juvenile Court Detention Home (1995), 107 Ohio App.3d 245, 668 N.E.2d 546 and Pettry v. McGinty (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 92, 397 N.E.2d 1190. Finally, in Howard v. Catholic Social Services of Cuyahoga County, Inc. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 141, 637 N.E.2d 840, the Supreme Court of Ohio indicated that in certain extreme circumstances in juvenile cases, habeas corpus might lie even if the trial court had -5- jurisdiction and there might be an adequate remedy. However, as in Howard, no such extreme circumstances are present. Accordingly, the application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied, and this writ is dismissed. Costs assessed against petitioner. PORTER, P.J., and LEO M. SPELLACY, J., CONCUR. .