The State Ex Rel. T.L.M. v. Judges of the First District Court of Appeals
147 Ohio St. 3d 25
| Ohio | 2016Background
- In Sept. 2014 Hamilton Cty. Juvenile Court committed T.L.M. to DYS, awarding 131 days credit; T.L.M. later moved to recalculate and sought additional credit.
- The court granted T.L.M. additional confinement credit (349 days) after a limited remand; T.L.M.’s pending appeals were voluntarily dismissed.
- The State filed notices of appeal in March 2015 but initially failed to file motions for leave to appeal as required; the court of appeals dismissed those appeals.
- The State then filed notices and motions for leave to appeal in the juvenile court on March 23, 2015, but the motions were not filed in the First District Court of Appeals until March 24 — one day after the 30-day App.R. 5(C) deadline.
- The court of appeals denied T.L.M.’s motion to dismiss, granted the State’s motions for leave to appeal, and set a briefing schedule; T.L.M. sought a writ of prohibition from the Ohio Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction to hear the State’s appeals of the juvenile court’s credit rulings | T.L.M.: State failed to strictly comply with App.R. 5(C); motions for leave to appeal were not filed in the court of appeals within 30 days, so appellate court lacks jurisdiction | Respondents (court of appeals/State): motions for leave were filed (albeit filed in trial court then transmitted); court of appeals proceeded and granted leave | Court: Jurisdiction lacking; State did not file motions with the court of appeals within the 30-day period, so appeals must be barred |
| Whether a writ of prohibition is appropriate remedy | T.L.M.: Appellate court’s exercise of power is unauthorized and no adequate remedy at law exists because lack of jurisdiction is patent | Respondents: T.L.M. has remedy by appeal from any adverse final order | Court: Writ granted because lack of jurisdiction is patent and unambiguous; prohibition appropriate |
| Whether strict compliance with App.R. 5(C) is required of the State | T.L.M.: Strict compliance is required; failure is jurisdictional | State: (implicitly) procedural steps were satisfied by filing in trial court and transmission | Court: State is strictly held to App.R. 5; filing in trial court with later transmission does not satisfy the requirement |
| Whether a stay of appellate proceedings was warranted pending Supreme Court resolution | T.L.M.: Sought stay to halt proceedings | Respondents: Opposed as unnecessary | Court: Motion to stay denied as moot after granting writ |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 Ohio St.3d 114 (2012) (writ standard and requirements for prohibition)
- State ex rel. Miller v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 130 Ohio St.3d 24 (2011) (standard for issuance of extraordinary writs)
- Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Oil & Gas Comm., 135 Ohio St.3d 204 (2013) (patent-and-unambiguous lack of jurisdiction justifies writ)
- State ex rel. Steffen v. First Dist. Court of Appeals, 126 Ohio St.3d 405 (2010) (prosecution required to timely seek leave to appeal under App.R. 5)
- State v. Wallace, 43 Ohio St.2d 1 (1975) (motions for leave to appeal by the state governed by App.R. 5 procedural timing)