2021 Ohio 1991
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Relators Kimberly Laurie and Seth Miller are criminal defendants in separate Chardon Municipal Court cases arising from a June 27, 2019 incident.
- The Geauga County Prosecutor applied for and Judge David M. Ondrey granted appointment of a special prosecuting attorney; the application was placed under seal.
- Relators moved to dismiss the prosecutions in municipal court, arguing the special-prosecutor appointment was improper; the motions were denied by the visiting judge.
- Relators filed an original action in this court seeking a writ of prohibition (and an emergency writ of stay) to block the prosecutions on the ground the appointment was insufficient and the municipal court lacked jurisdiction.
- The appellate court evaluated whether prohibition was appropriate and whether relators lacked an adequate remedy at law.
- The court granted respondents’ Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motions and dismissed the petition, holding relators have an adequate remedy by appeal and the municipal court does not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction; the court also lacked authority to issue a writ of stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a writ of prohibition should block prosecution because the special-prosecutor appointment was improper | Laurie: appointment was insufficient/improper, so municipal court lacks jurisdiction and prosecution should be stopped | Respondents: appointment was within common-pleas authority; relators can raise defects in trial court and on appeal | Denied — prohibition inappropriate; relators have adequate remedy by motion/appeal |
| Whether relators lack an adequate remedy at law | Laurie: no adequate remedy because trial will proceed under an improperly appointed prosecutor and an appeal would be ineffective | Respondents: relators may move to dismiss in trial court and, if overruled and convicted, appeal the denial | Denied — adequate remedy exists (motion to dismiss and appeal) |
| Whether the appointment rendered the municipal court’s jurisdiction patently and unambiguously lacking | Laurie: legal defects in appointment deprive municipal court of jurisdiction to proceed | Respondents: common pleas have inherent authority to appoint special prosecutors; nothing shows subject-matter jurisdiction is absent | Denied — no patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether this court may issue an "extraordinary writ of stay" | Laurie: emergency stay required to halt prosecution pending challenge to appointment | Respondents: appellate court’s original jurisdiction is limited to specified writs; "writ of stay" not among them | Denied — court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of stay |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 Ohio St.3d 114 (2012) (elements for writ of prohibition and requirement of no adequate remedy at law)
- Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Oil & Gas Comm., 135 Ohio St.3d 204 (2013) (trial court must patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to warrant prohibition)
- State ex rel. Johnson v. Talikka, 71 Ohio St.3d 109 (1994) (quo warranto/prohibition precluded where defendant has motion-to-dismiss and appeal remedies against special-prosecutor appointment)
- State ex rel. Jackson v. Allen, 65 Ohio St.3d 37 (1992) (extraordinary writ denied where defendant can appeal denial of motion to dismiss indictments)
- State ex rel. Williams v. Zaleski, 12 Ohio St.3d 109 (1984) (common pleas possess inherent power to appoint special prosecutors)
- State v. Bunyan, 51 Ohio App.3d 190 (3d Dist. 1988) (affirming common-pleas authority to appoint special prosecutors)