State ex rel. Thigpen v. Sutula
2014 Ohio 611
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Thigpen filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition to stop Judge Sutula from proceeding to trial in State v. Thigpen, C.P. No. CR-563007.
- The trial court’s dismissal was sought on the basis that the writ petition was not properly supported by an affidavit as required by Loc.App.R.45(B)(1)(a).
- Thigpen allegedly failed to attach a notarized affidavit describing each civil action filed in the prior five years as required by R.C. 2969.25(A).
- Thigpen asserted a speedy-trial violation as the basis for prohibiting the trial.
- The court held speedy-trial claims are not cognizable via writ of prohibition and that such claims are ordinarily reviewable on appeal.
- The court granted Sutula’s motion to dismiss and awarded costs to Thigpen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Affidavit requirement for prohibition writ | Thigpen contends the complaint is properly supported. | Defect in sworn/notarized affidavit requires dismissal. | Dismissed for failure to comply. |
| R.C. 2969.25(A) attachment requirement | Affidavit detailing prior actions should be attached. | Failing attachment required dismissal. | Dismissed for failure to attach required affidavit. |
| Cognizability of speedy-trial claim in a prohibition writ | Speedy-trial violation justifies prohibiting trial. | Prohibition writ is not the proper vehicle for speedy-trial claims. | Not cognizable via writ; remedy is appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Starr v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97759, 2012-Ohio-2214 (8th Dist. 2012) (affidavit requirements for prohibition writ)
- State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92826, 2009-Ohio-1612 (8th Dist. 2009) (prohibition affidavit requirements)
- State ex rel. Santos v. McDonnell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90659, 2008-Ohio-214 (8th Dist. 2008) (prohibition writ standards)
- Turner v. Russo, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87852, 2006-Ohio-4490 (8th Dist. 2006) (procedural requirements for writs)
- Barry v. Galvin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 85990, 2005-Ohio-2324 (8th Dist. 2005) (prohibition prerequisites)
- State ex rel. Jackim v. Ambrose, 118 Ohio St.3d 512, 2008-Ohio-3182 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (speedy-trial claims context)
- State ex rel. Pesci v. Lucci, 115 Ohio St.3d 218, 2007-Ohio-4795 (Ohio Supreme Court 2007) (remedies for speedy-trial claims)