Cleveland v. McCruel, 2017 Ohio 182

Defendant Brian McCruel was charged with domestic violence and tried to the bench on July 1, 2014 in Cleveland Municipal Court.
Over the prosecutor’s objection, the trial judge placed McCruel in the court’s Deferred Judgment Program (DJP) after trial; DJP placement normally requires prosecutor recommendation under R.C. 2935.36 and the court’s written standards.
McCruel completed the DJP requirements (and a separate Selective Intervention Program) over the following year.
A dispute between the trial judge and the prosecutor over authority to place/terminate DJP participants led to recusal(s) and administrative-judge involvement; the administrative judge later declared a mistrial and set a new trial.
On the new trial date, the prosecutor said the city was not prepared and moved to dismiss; the court dismissed the case for want of prosecution with prejudice.
The city appealed, challenging (1) the court’s authority in placing McCruel in the DJP/separation-of-powers, (2) the mistrial declaration, and (3) dismissal with prejudice; appellee moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely and moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the July 1, 2014 order placing McCruel in the DJP was a final appealable order	The city argued the court improperly interfered with prosecution but raised this claim belatedly	McCruel argued the July 1 order was final and appealable, so the city’s later challenge is untimely	Court: The July 1, 2014 placement was a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02 because it affected the state’s substantial right to prosecute
Whether the trial court abused discretion by declaring a mistrial	City: mistrial was unnecessary; court should have used a lesser remedy	Defendant: completion of DJP made city’s remaining claims moot; defendant relied on finality of prior placement and program completion	Court: Moot — because McCruel completed the DJP, the city cannot obtain relief on the mistrial claim
Whether dismissal with prejudice was erroneous (no deprivation of rights found)	City: dismissal with prejudice was erroneous absent a finding of constitutional/statutory deprivation	Defendant: successful completion of DJP is the constructive equivalent of serving a sentence; dismissal moot to appeal	Court: Moot — appellant’s claims rendered moot by defendant’s completion of DJP; appeal dismissed as untimely and moot

State v. Urvan, 4 Ohio App.3d 151 (1982) (successful completion of diversion program is constructively equivalent to serving a sentence for double jeopardy purposes)
State v. Coffman, 91 Ohio St.3d 125 (2001) (definition and scope of a substantial right for final appealability)
Polikoff v. Adam, 67 Ohio St.3d 100 (1993) (definition of a special proceeding for final-appealable-order analysis)