State ex rel. Bates v. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate Dist.
130 Ohio St. 3d 326
Ohio2011Background
- Relator Bates seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the Sixth District from proceeding with Belton’s delayed appeal from a trial court order denying Belton’s pretrial constitutional challenge to Crim.R. 11(C)(3) and R.C. 2929.03 in a capital case.
- The trial court (Common Pleas) denied Belton’s challenge on Nov. 30, 2009, upholding the challenged provisions.
- Belton later sought a delayed appeal under App.R. 5(A) after the Sixth District dismissed his initial appeal as from a void judgment, and the Sixth District granted the delay.
- Belton’s October 25, 2010 notice of intent to plead guilty and impanel a jury was asserted by Belton to transform the denial into a final, appealable order, which the Sixth District treated as transforming the nonfinal order into a final one.
- The Supreme Court granted the writ, holding the Sixth District patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction because the underlying order was not a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sixth District had jurisdiction over Belton’s delayed appeal from the trial court’s order. | Order not final; appellate jurisdiction not triggered. | App.R. 5(A) delay allowed when final order exists; Belton attempted to rely on an alleged transformation. | Yes; the court lacked jurisdiction and the writ was granted. |
| Whether the November 30, 2009 order denying Belton’s challenge was a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02. | Order affected a substantial right and was final. | No finality; no substantial right implicated; not final. | Not a final, appealable order under 2505.02(B)(1)-(2); not appealable. |
| Whether App.R. 5(A) applies when there is no final order to appeal, given that it presupposes a final, appealable order. | App.R. 5(A) may authorize delayed appeal from an interlocutory order. | App.R. 5(A) relies on a final order; transformation cannot create finality here. | App.R. 5(A) requires a final order; here none existed. |
| Whether the order could qualify as a provisional remedy under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) so as to be a final appealable order. | Order relates to the constitutional challenge in the capital case. | No provisional-remedy proceeding; not ancillary to an action. | Not a provisional-remedy order; does not satisfy 2505.02(B)(4). |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Mayer v. Henson, 97 Ohio St.3d 276 (2002-Ohio-6323) (jurisdictional prohibition when lacking jurisdiction to proceed)
- State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals, 118 Ohio St.3d 368 (2008-Ohio-2637) (prohibition where appellate remedy immaterial due to lack of jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 126 Ohio St.3d 41 (2010-Ohio-2450) (standard for extraordinary relief in prohibition)
- State ex rel. Cordray v. Marshall, 123 Ohio St.3d 229 (2009-Ohio-4986) (prohibition on invalid exercise of judicial power)
- State v. Silsby, 119 Ohio St.3d 370 (2008-Ohio-3834) (finality prerequisites for appellate review in criminal cases)
- Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70 (2006-Ohio-5283) (interplay of jury-trial rights and sentencing procedure in capital cases)
- State v. Upshaw, 110 Ohio St.3d 189 (2006-Ohio-4253) (definition of provisional remedy under 2505.02)