Lingo v. State
138 Ohio St. 3d 427
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Glick, Lingo, and Williams filed a class action in Cuyahoga C.P. seeking declaratory, injunctive, and restitution relief regarding unappealed municipal court sentences with allegedly unlawfully excessive costs.
- Defendants named included the state of Ohio, the Ohio Department of the Treasury, and Raymond J. Wohl (clerk of the Berea Municipal Court); Glick and Wohl remained as parties on appeal.
- The trial court held some costs unlawful, ordered refunds, and granted injunctive relief; the Eighth District reversed, granting Wohl summary judgment on the viability of the class action.
- Glick paid $510 in court costs (with $85 later identified as improper) as part of a Berea Municipal Court sentence; he did not appeal the underlying conviction.
- Statutory framework centered on costs assessed per case vs per offense, including RC 2947.23, RC 2743.70(A), and RC 1901.26, with special-project fees at issue.
- The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the Eighth District’s reversal for reasons that the common pleas court had no power to vacate a municipal court judgment in favor of the plaintiffs’ requested relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the common pleas court could maintain a class action for declaratory and equitable relief challenging unappealed municipal-court costs. | Glick argued the court could resolve disputes over improper costs and disgorge funds. | Wohl contends the court cannot vacate municipal judgments or provide the requested relief via declaratory judgment. | No; declaratory relief and a court to vacate municipal judgments were unavailable. |
| Whether declaratory judgment is an appropriate vehicle to review final sentencing judgments. | Glick contended the Declaratory Judgments Act could resolve statutory construction and rights to refunds. | Wohl argued the Act does not extend to review of final criminal judgments. | No; declaratory judgment cannot substitute for direct or collateral review of judgments. |
| Whether void or voidable judgments may be collaterally attacked to recover unlawfully collected costs. | Glick sought relief that effectively vacated part of a sentencing entry (a void or voidable judgment). | Wohl argued collateral attack on a municipal court judgment was improper in this forum. | Void judgments can be attacked in proper proceedings, but here the relief sought was outside the court’s jurisdiction. |
| Whether the action was properly framed as alleging clerical overreach by the clerk rather than a judicial error in the original sentencing. | Glick framed relief as restitution for improper costs charged by the clerk under administrative authority. | Wohl contends the action seeks to review and vacate a municipal-court order beyond the trial court’s authority. | The action effectively sought to vacate a portion of the municipal judgment, which the common pleas court cannot do. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (2006-Ohio-905) (costs of prosecution part of sentencing; sentencing entry is final as to costs)
- Middleburg Hts. v. Quinones, 120 Ohio St.3d 534 (2008-Ohio-6811) (costs per case vs per offense; special-projects fees; per-case baseline)
- Santos v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 101 Ohio St.3d 74 (2004-Ohio-28) (equity relief for return of funds wrongfully collected; declaratory relief not a substitute for review)
- Judy v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 100 Ohio St.3d 122 (2003-Ohio-5277) (equitable restitution; declaratory relief context)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (void judgments may be reviewed collateral-attack; limits on cross-forums review)