Trammell v. Powell
2011 Ohio 2978
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Powell was convicted in 2001 of rape, kidnapping, felonious assault, and corruption of a minor, for crimes against Shannon Trammell, who was then fifteen.
- Trammell filed a petition on August 5, 2009 seeking a civil stalking protection order (CSPO) against Powell.
- A full hearing was scheduled after Trammell waived an ex parte CSPO; Powell moved to be transported from prison to attend but was denied.
- A magistrate conducted the hearing on September 30, 2009 and granted a five-year CSPO based on Trammell’s testimony.
- The trial court adopted the magistrate’s findings on December 14, 2009; Powell appealed pro se.
- Powell did not file objections to the magistrate’s decision and the record includes no CSPO hearing transcript for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of prison transport violated due process | Powell asserts due process requires presence at hearing. | Magistrate properly exercised discretion due to cost, security, and limited impact of CSPO while incarcerated. | Denied; no due process requirement to transport. |
| Legal sufficiency and weight of the CSPO evidence | Outcome could differ if Powell testified; Trammell’s testimony unreliable. | Transcript missing prevents manifest weight/sufficiency review; no error shown. | Overruled; arguments waived due to lack of transcript and objections. |
| Timeliness of the CSPO hearing | Hearing conducted untimely under R.C. 2903.214(D)(2). | No ex parte CSPO occurred; ten-day rule not applicable. | Overruled. |
| Constitutionality of R.C. 2903.214 | Statute should require proof beyond a reasonable doubt and define pattern of conduct. | Waived; not raised below and court may decline to address waived issues. | Overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shepard Grain Co. v. Creager, 160 Ohio App.3d 377 (2005-Ohio-1717) (no absolute right for incarcerated to attend civil hearings; trial court has discretion)
- Mancino v. Lakewood, 36 Ohio App.3d 219 (1987) (due process factors for transporting incarcerated parties)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (due process considerations in confinement contexts)
- State v. Gordon, 2003-Ohio-6558 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003) (no automatic requirement to transport in CPO actions)
- In re Sprague, 113 Ohio App.3d 274 (1996) (no due process violation when incarcerated party denied appearance)
- State v. Golston, 66 Ohio App.3d 423 (1990) (incarcerated litigant has no absolute right to civil forfeiture hearing presence)
- State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (1986) (waiver of constitutional issues not raised below)