2018 Ohio 184
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Robert L. Hillman filed an accusation by affidavit under R.C. 2935.09 alleging Columbus police officer David Larrison committed perjury at Hillman’s criminal trial.
- The trial court initially dismissed the affidavit; this court reversed in Hillman I for failure to apply R.C. 2935.10 procedures (issue warrant or refer to prosecutor).
- On remand the trial court dismissed again citing a missing notary stamp; this court reversed in Hillman II under the law-of-the-case doctrine.
- On later remand the trial court found Hillman’s affidavit not meritorious, referred the matter to the prosecutor for investigation, overruled Hillman’s motions, and closed the case.
- Hillman appealed, arguing (1) the trial court ignored evidence in the record and violated his due process and equal protection rights, and (2) the trial judge was biased because Hillman had accused that judge in another proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly found the R.C. 2935.09 affidavit not meritorious under R.C. 2935.10 | Hillman: affidavit cited specific false statements and included trial-transcript excerpts and a 911 report supporting perjury allegations | Trial court: affidavit contained only accusations and lacked a trial transcript or supporting authenticated evidence | Court: Reversed — trial court erred by mischaracterizing the record and failing to consider the evidence Hillman submitted; remanded to determine whether affidavit is meritorious |
| Whether the court’s handling of the affidavit violated Hillman’s constitutional due process/equal protection rights | Hillman: court ignored his evidence, denying meaningful access and appellate review | City: no constitutional violation argued; process governed by R.C. 2935.10 | Court: Overruled constitutional claim — decision not based on constitutional violation though court failed to rely on the record |
| Whether the trial judge was biased/prejudiced | Hillman: judge acted from vindictiveness tied to a separate accusation he filed against her | City: bias claims against common pleas judges must be pursued under R.C. 2701.03, not in this appeal | Court: Overruled — appeals court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate judicial-bias claims against common pleas judges; exclusive remedy is R.C. 2701.03 |
| Proper remedial action after procedural errors on multiple remands | Hillman: requested full consideration of his supporting documents and merits finding | City: sought closure after judge’s non-meritorious finding | Court: Judgment reversed; remanded with instructions to consider Hillman’s affidavit and supporting record to determine whether a meritorious allegation of perjury exists |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Boylen v. Harmon, 107 Ohio St.3d 370 (2006) (describing trial court duties under R.C. 2935.10)
- Wardeh v. Altabchi, 158 Ohio App.3d 325 (10th Dist. 2004) (appeals court lacks authority to decide common pleas judge bias claims; R.C. 2701.03 is exclusive remedy)