Hillman v. LarrisonHillman v. Larrison
BROWN, J.
{¶ 1} Robеrt L. Hillman, plaintiff-appellant, appeals the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, in which the court granted the motion to dismiss filed by David Larrison, defendant-appellee, and assigned costs to aрpellant.
{¶ 2} Appellant is an inmate at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution. On March 27, 2015, appellant filed a pleading captioned “(ACCUSATION BY AFFIDAVIT) (CRIMINAL COMPLAINT)” (“affidavit“) against appellee, who is a city of Columbus poliсe officer. Appellant alleged in the affidavit that appellee committed perjury during appellant‘s criminal trial. Appellant‘s affidavit specifically indicated it was being filed, pursuant to
{¶ 3} On April 24, 2015, appellee filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Appellee asserted that (1) there is a process within the criminal justice system for arrest warrants to be issued, but a suit in a civil case is not part of that process, and (2) appellant failed to file an affidavit of prior civil actions that complies with
{¶ 4} On May 14, 2015, appellant filed a motion arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over the case. Appellant asserted that the clerk of courts deliberately misfiled the case as a civil case when it was clearly an affidavit filed under
{¶ 5} On July 15, 2015, the trial court issued an order in which it granted appellee‘s motion to dismiss, terminated the case, and assigned costs to appellant. On July 30, 2015, the trial court issued a cost bill for $95. Appellant appeals the judgment of the trial court, asserting the following assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED IT‘S DISCRETION WHEN IT IMPOSED UPON THE APPELLANT COURT COST AND FILING FEES WITHOUT HAVING ACQUIRED SUBJECT-MATTER OR PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE IN VIOLATION OF THE APPELLANT‘S 1ST, 5TH, AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.
{¶ 6} In his assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred when it imposed court сosts and filing fees on him without having acquired subject-matter or personal jurisdiction. Specifically, appellant contends that he did not file a motion to dismiss but, instead, filed a motion stating that the trial court had no jurisdiction to do anything because it was misfiled by the clerk of courts as a civil matter when it was an affidavit pursuant to
{¶ 7} Appellant filed his affidavit pursuant to
(A) As used in this section, “reviewing official” means a judge of a court of record, the prosecuting attorney or attorney
charged by law with the prosecution of offenses in a cоurt or before a magistrate, or a magistrate. (B) In all cases not provided by sections
2935.02 to2935.08 of the Revised Code, in order to cause the arrest or prosecution of a person charged with committing an offense in this state, a peace officer or a private citizen having knowledge of the facts shall comply with this section.(C) A peace officer who seeks to cause an arrest or prosecution under this section may file with a reviewing official or the clerk of a court of record an affidavit charging the offense committed.
(D) A private citizen having knowledge of the facts who seeks to cause an arrest or prosеcution under this section may file an affidavit charging the offense committed with a reviewing official for the purpose of review to determine if a complaint should be filed by the prosecuting attorney or attorney charged by law with the prosecution of offenses in the court or before the magistrate. A private citizen may file an affidavit charging the offense committed with the clerk of a court of rеcord before or after the normal business hours of the reviewing officials if the clerk‘s office is open at those times. A clerk who receives an affidavit before or after the normal business hours of the reviewing officials shall forward it to a reviewing official when the reviewing official‘s normal business hours resume.
{¶ 8}
(A) Upon the filing of an affidavit or complaint as provided by section
2935.09 of the Revised Code, if it charges the commission of a felony, such judge, clerk, or magistrate, unless he has reason to believe that it was not filed in good faith, or the claim is not meritorious, shall forthwith issue a warrant for the arrest of the persоn charged in the affidavit, and directed to a peace officer; otherwise he shall forthwith refer the matter to the prosecuting attorney or other attorney charged by law with prosecution for investigation prior to the issuance of warrant.
{¶ 9} Therefore, pursuant to
{¶ 10}
{¶ 11} In the present case, appellant submitted his affidavit to the clerk of courts. The clerk of courts filed the affidavit, assigned the affidavit a civil case number, and assigned it to a judge. Appellee then filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to
{¶ 12} Subsequent to appelleе‘s filing of his motion to dismiss, appellant filed a motion asserting that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. Appellant contended that the case was misfiled by the clerk of courts аs a civil complaint, as opposed to an affidavit pursuant to
{¶ 13} We do not reach the ultimate issue raised by appellant‘s assignment of error regarding the trial court‘s charging of costs because the trial court failed to follow the
{¶ 14} As the court in State ex rel. Brown v. Jeffries, 4th Dist. No. 11CA3275, 2012-Ohio-1522, explained, when ”
{¶ 15} We note that we do not reach several issues related to the practical application of
{¶ 16} Accordingly, appellant‘s assignment of error is moot, the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is reversed, and this matter is remanded to that court for further proceedings in accordance with law, consistent with this decision.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
DORRIAN, P.J., and TYACK, J., concur.