State ex rel. McGinty v. Eighth District Court of Appeals
142 Ohio St. 3d 100
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Lance Mason, a Cuyahoga County Common Pleas judge, was indicted on multiple felonies and charged in CR-14-588061; the chief justice assigned Judge Patricia Cosgrove to the case.
- Mason moved to disqualify the entire Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office and to appoint a special prosecutor; the trial court denied the motion for lack of actual prejudice and conflict.
- Mason filed an immediate interlocutory appeal to the Eighth District Court of Appeals and sought a stay of trial proceedings; the Eighth District granted a stay while it considered whether it had jurisdiction.
- Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty filed an original action in prohibition in the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing the Eighth District patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal or to issue the stay.
- The Ohio Supreme Court granted the writ, holding the Eighth District lacked jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals from denials of motions to disqualify the prosecutor’s office and ordering the court of appeals to vacate the stay and remand for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Eighth District exercised judicial power by issuing a stay | McGinty: issuing a stay is an exercise of judicial power that must be authorized | Eighth Dist.: it had not yet exercised jurisdiction over the merits | Held: granting a stay is an exercise of judicial power; a court lacking jurisdiction over an appeal also lacks power to stay trial court proceedings |
| Whether there is an adequate alternative remedy if prohibition is denied | McGinty: delay and harms to prosecution make appellate review inadequate | Eighth Dist.: litigant can obtain decision from court of appeals and then appeal to Ohio Supreme Court | Held: appeal after final judgment is an adequate remedy; delay/expense do not make it inadequate |
| Whether the denial of a motion to disqualify the prosecutor’s office is a final, appealable order under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) | Mason: denial is appealable under §2505.02(B)(4) as a denial of a provisional remedy | McGinty: denial is not final/appealable because meaningful relief remains via postconviction appeal or new trial | Held: denial is not a final, appealable order under §2505.02(B)(4); interlocutory appeal is disfavored and would produce unacceptable delay |
| Whether a writ of prohibition should issue because lack of jurisdiction is patent and unambiguous | McGinty: the lack of appellate jurisdiction is clear and urgent | Eighth Dist.: it should be allowed to decide jurisdictional question; this is what appeals courts do | Held: lack of jurisdiction is patent and unambiguous; writ granted ordering vacation of stay and remand to trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 Ohio St.3d 114 (2012) (standards for extraordinary writs)
- State ex rel. Miller v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 130 Ohio St.3d 24 (2011) (requirements for prohibition)
- Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Oil & Gas Comm., 135 Ohio St.3d 204 (2013) (patent-and-unambiguous jurisdictional defects)
- State v. Hochhausler, 76 Ohio St.3d 455 (1996) (appellate courts’ power to grant or deny stays)
- Bernbaum v. Silverstein, 62 Ohio St.2d 445 (1980) (denial of disqualification can be remedied postjudgment)
- Wilhelm-Kissinger v. Kissinger, 129 Ohio St.3d 90 (2011) (denial of motion to disqualify opposing counsel is not final and appealable)
- State v. Chambliss, 128 Ohio St.3d 507 (2011) (erroneous deprivation of retained counsel may be structural error)