State ex rel. Dailey v. Dawson (Slip Opinion)
149 Ohio St. 3d 685
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Nov. 29, 2012: Cleveland police pursuit into East Cleveland; two occupants killed. Thirteen officers fired 137 rounds.
- May 30, 2014: Cuyahoga County grand jury indicted five former Cleveland police supervisors on two misdemeanor counts each (dereliction of duty).
- July 2, 2015: East Cleveland filed identical dereliction-of-duty charges against the same five defendants in East Cleveland Municipal Court; Judge William L. Dawson scheduled arraignments.
- July 8, 2015: Defendants sought a writ of prohibition in the Eighth District, arguing the jurisdictional-priority rule barred municipal-court prosecution because the common pleas indictments were filed first.
- July 10, 2015: Cuyahoga County moved to dismiss the common pleas indictments; the common pleas court dismissed them. The court of appeals issued a writ preventing Judge Dawson from proceeding; the Eighth District later granted the writ.
- Ohio Supreme Court review: reversed the court of appeals, holding municipal court jurisdiction was not patently and unambiguously lacking and defendants had an adequate remedy by appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether municipal court was barred by the jurisdictional-priority rule | County/city: once common-pleas charges were dismissed, no competing prosecution remained; municipal court may proceed | Defendants: common-pleas prosecution was first in time so municipal court lacked jurisdiction under the rule | Held: Rule did not patently and unambiguously bar municipal court after common-pleas dismissals; municipal court retains jurisdiction |
| Whether a writ of prohibition was appropriate | County/city: prohibition improper because defendant has adequate remedy by appeal from municipal-court decision | Defendants: extraordinary writ proper because jurisdictional-priority rule creates a clear, jurisdictional bar and appeal is inadequate | Held: Appeal is an adequate remedy absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction; prohibition denied |
| Whether municipal court judge patently and unambiguously lacked subject-matter jurisdiction | County/city: municipal court has general misdemeanor jurisdiction over offenses within its territory | Defendants: identical indictments first filed in common pleas presumed to vest priority in common pleas | Held: Judge Dawson had general subject-matter jurisdiction over misdemeanors in East Cleveland; lack of jurisdiction was not patent and unambiguous |
| Effect of prosecutor’s dismissal of common-pleas indictments on jurisdictional-priority | County/city: dismissal removes any competing prosecution, resolving priority issue | Defendants: dismissal does not negate that municipal filings were improper under the rule | Held: Following Coss, dismissal of the earlier proceedings means no second prosecution is threatened and priority does not bar municipal prosecution |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Coss v. Hoddinott, 16 Ohio St.2d 163 (Ohio 1968) (jurisdictional-priority rule and effect of dismissal of earlier prosecution)
- State ex rel. Rootstown Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Portage Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 78 Ohio St.3d 489 (1997) (appeal ordinarily provides adequate remedy to challenge jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Corn v. Russo, 90 Ohio St.3d 551 (2001) (writ of prohibition is extraordinary and granted with caution)
- State ex rel. Smith v. Hall, 145 Ohio St.3d 473 (2016) (extraordinary relief available only when no adequate remedy at law)
- State ex rel. Shimko v. McMonagle, 92 Ohio St.3d 426 (2001) (jurisdictional-priority rule requires same causes of action and parties)
- State ex rel. Otten v. Henderson, 129 Ohio St.3d 453 (2011) (writ may issue when parties and causes are identical)
- State ex rel. Sellers v. Gerken, 72 Ohio St.3d 115 (1995) (review limited to whether jurisdiction is patently and unambiguously lacking)