In re Sullivan
2022 Ohio 852
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Jan. 15, 2021: James Sullivan was found in direct criminal contempt for courtroom disruption and sentenced to 3 days; after a search a body camera was found and the court imposed an additional 30-day jail term for violating courthouse recording rules (Loc.R. 33).
- During a Feb. 25, 2021 hearing the court acknowledged it had taken a body camera and a cell phone from Sullivan; Sullivan later claimed a cane had also been taken but did not raise the cane at that hearing.
- Sullivan moved for return of his property; the trial court overruled the motion in a written entry (referenced by Sullivan as Feb. 22/25, 2021).
- Sullivan filed a notice of appeal (Mar. 31, 2021). This court initially dismissed the appeal as untimely, then vacated that dismissal after finding the appeal deadline tolled because Sullivan had not been served the order denying return of property.
- This court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review assignments challenging the underlying contempt convictions (assignments 1,2,3,4,6) because the notice of appeal was limited to the order denying return of property; it sustained assignment 5 and ordered return of the devices and cane.
- The court refused to require deletion of recorded courthouse footage before returning the devices and remanded with instructions to return Sullivan’s cell phone, body camera, and cane (if seized); other pending motions were denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review claims challenging contempt convictions | Sullivan contends the seizures, search, arrest, due-process, wiretapping interpretation, and ADA issues arise from the same proceedings and are reviewable on this appeal | Appellees argue the notice of appeal challenges only the denial of the motion to return property, not the contempt convictions | Court: dismisses assignments 1,2,3,4,6 for lack of jurisdiction because they challenge convictions, not the judgment identified in the notice of appeal |
| Motion for return of property | Sullivan sought return of cell phone, body camera, and cane as unlawfully retained | Appellees initially resisted but conceded post-briefing that Hammock requires return; asked that recordings be deleted before return | Court: sustains assignment 5, reverses denial of return, remands with instruction to return phone, body camera, and cane (if seized) |
| Whether deletion of recorded courthouse footage is required before return | Sullivan implicitly opposed deletion (seeking return) | Appellees requested deletion of the recorded footage prior to return of devices | Court: not persuaded deletion is required; orders return without mandating deletion |
| Constitutionality of the initial seizure/search and related claims (First/Fourth/ADA/due process) | Sullivan argued warrantless seizure/search and constitutional violations in the contempt proceedings | Appellees defended contempt/retention or argued procedural posture impaired review | Court: declined to reach merits — these constitutional claims attack the contempt convictions and were dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kilbane, 61 Ohio St.2d 201, 400 N.E.2d 386 (1980) (punishment for contempt must be reasonably commensurate with the gravity of the offense)