State ex rel. Lotz v. Hover, 37302
| Decision Date | 03 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 37302,37302 |
| Citation | 174 Ohio St. 380,189 N.E.2d 433 |
| Parties | , 22 O.O.2d 443 The STATE ex rel. LOTZ, v. HOVER, Pros. Atty. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Edwin E. Lotz, in pro. per.
Raymond E. Shannon, Pros. Atty., for respondent.
This case is now before the court pursuant to the allowance of an application for rehearing. On the original hearing the court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondent, C. Watson Hover, prosecuting attorney of Hamilton County, to dismiss certain indictments pending against relator, Edwin E. Lotz, on the ground that relator had been denied a speedy trial. State ex rel. Lotz v. Hover, Pros., Atty., 174 Ohio St. 68, 186 N.E.2d 841.
The primary question raised by respondent is whether he has the power to dismiss such indictments. If he does not have such power, obviously there is no clear legal duty which may be enforced by mandamus. It is respondent's contention that basically the power to dismiss an indictment lies in the Court of Common Pleas, and his only authority in relation thereto arises by reason of Section 2941.33, Revised Code, which provides as follows:
Respondent urges that under this section the only way he can dismiss an indictment is with the leave of the court. We think his point well taken. Clearly, under this statute the prosecuting attorney may dismiss indictments only with the consent of the Court of Common Pleas. A writ of mandamus may only issue if the person against whom such writ is directed has the complete power to perform the act.
The writ issued in this case is withdrawn.
Writ withdrawn.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flenoy v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority
...(1962), 174 Ohio St. 68, 72, 21 O.O.2d 332, 334, 186 N.E.2d 841, 844, writ withdrawn on other grounds on rehearing (1963), 174 Ohio St. 380, 22 O.O.2d 443, 189 N.E.2d 433. Although Flenoy did not ask for a hearing, he has sought to have something done about his parole revocation. Like the r......
-
State ex rel. Alford v. Willoughby Civil Service Commission
...misjoinder of parties, relying on State ex rel. Stine v. Atkinson (1939), 136 Ohio St. 72, 23 N.E.2d 637, and State ex rel. Lotz v. Hover (1963), 174 Ohio St. 380, 189 N.E.2d 433. While appellee raises a significant issue in the present cause, it is raised Regardless of the pleading require......
-
State ex rel. Bell v. Blair
... ... See State, ex rel. Lotz, v. Hover (1962), 174 Ohio St. 68, 186 N.E.2d 841, writ withdrawn on other grounds, 174 Ohio St ... ...
-
Lakewood v. Pfeifer, 91-B-517
...Trocodaro, id., 36 Ohio App.2d at 10, 65 O.O.2d at 7, 301 N.E.2d at 904. The Ohio Supreme Court, in State ex rel. Lotz v. Hover (1963), 174 Ohio St. 380, 22 O.O.2d 443, 189 N.E.2d 433, also upheld the position that it is the role of the court, not the prosecutor, to dismiss a criminal Const......