CITY OF CLEVELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COREY WANTON, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 109828
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
June 10, 2021
[Cite as Cleveland v. Wanton, 2021-Ohio-1951.]
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 10, 2021
Criminal Appeal from the Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. 2019 TRC 21255
Appearances:
Barbara A. Langhenry, Cleveland Director of Law, Aqueelah Jordan, Chief Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael J. Ferrari, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Robert McCaleb, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.:
{¶ 1} Appellant city of Cleveland appeals the dismissal of a criminal complaint issued against appellee Corey Wanton. The trial court dismissed the criminal complaint because the pending misdemeanor charges were not filed with
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} After a traffic accident on June 26, 2019, involving two vehicles and an RTA bus, Wanton was charged in the Cleveland Municipal Court with operating a vehicle while under the influence, driving under suspension, and driving without an assured clear distance. There was no associated felony charge filed in the municipal court. Underlying his charges in the municipal court, the city alleged that Wanton was operating a car that rear-ended another car that then hit an RTA bus. The city further alleged that the driver of the middle car that was struck was injured. After the collision, Wanton was transported to a hospital by Cleveland EMS. EMS personnel examined Wanton and believed him to be under the influence. They obtained a small vial containing a brown liquid from him and gave that bottle to RTA police officers.
{¶ 3} On August 26, 2019, Wanton was indicted by a grand jury in Cuyahoga County C.P. No. 19-643099-A on one count of felony drug possession. On January 30, 2020, he was convicted of the charge and sentenced to community control sanctions.
{¶ 4} On February 18, 2020, argument was held on Wanton‘s motion to dismiss in this case. On June 16, 2020, the trial court granted the motion. In his
{¶ 5} In dismissing the charges, the trial court stated on the record at the hearing that the felony possession charges were never brought in the municipal court and, thus, the misdemeanor charges were not bound over to the common pleas court. The trial court further noted that
A. Appellant‘s Assignments of Error
{¶ 6} Appellant raises three assignments of error:
Assignment of Error No. 1. The trial court erred when it dismissed this case because of a perceived violation of
Crim.R. 5 .Assignment of Error No. 2.
Crim.R. 1(B) does not bolster the trial court‘s interpretation ofCrim.R. (5)(B) .Assignment of Error No. 3. While
Crim.R. 48(B) does give the trial court authority to dismiss a complaint over the objection of the prosecutor, it does not apply in this case, as the sole basis the trial court cites in its argument and on its journal entry isCrim.R. 5 .
{¶ 7} Appellant‘s assignments of error are interrelated and will be addressed together. In summary, appellant argues that the trial court erred by dismissing the criminal complaint based on
B. Standard of Review of the Motion to Dismiss
{¶ 8} In this case, the trial court dismissed the complaint because the city violated the “intent and spirit and purpose” of
C. Crim.R. 5(B) is Inapplicable
{¶ 9} The charges filed in the municipal court were misdemeanors.
In felony cases a defendant is entitled to a preliminary hearing unless waived in writing. If the defendant waives preliminary hearing, the judge or magistrate shall forthwith order the defendant bound over to the court of common pleas. Except upon good cause shown, any misdemeanor, other than a minor misdemeanor, arising from the same act or transaction involving a felony shall be bound over or transferred with the felony case.
{¶ 10} No felony charges were filed in the municipal court. ”
{¶ 11}
{¶ 12} In this case, the trial court relied upon its interpretation of the intent of
{¶ 13} In addition, the misdemeanor charges filed against Wanton could not be transferred to the common pleas court pursuant to
{¶ 14} Here,
III. Conclusion
{¶ 15} The trial court erred by ordering the dismissal of charges in this matter pursuant to its application of
It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the municipal court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., and LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR