City of Cleveland v. Spencer

• Decision Date: 06 June 2019
• Docket Number: No.: 2018 TRC 025584,: 2018 TRC 025584
• Citation: City of Cleveland v. Spencer, 143 N.E.3d 1188 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. 2019)
• Parties: CITY OF CLEVELAND, Plaintiff v. Robert SPENCER, Defendant
• Court: Ohio Court of Common Pleas

143 N.E.3d 1188

CITY OF CLEVELAND, Plaintiff

v.Robert SPENCER, Defendant

No.: 2018 TRC 025584

Ohio Municipal Court, Cleveland.

Date: June 6, 2019

Attorney Mark Jablonski, Olmsted Falls, appeared for Plaintiff and Attorney Joseph M. Giersz, appeared for Defendant.

JUDGMENT ENTRY

JUDGE EMANUELLA GROVES

Facts

The facts in this case are undisputed. On August 23, 2018, the defendant was arrested by an Ohio State Highway Patrol Officer for alleged violations of RC 4511.19, driving while impaired, a misdemeanor and 2921.31(B) failure to comply and 2921.31(A) obstruction of official business, which were charged as felonies. On August 27, 2018, a complaint for driving while impaired was filed in Cleveland Municipal Court. On September 18, 2018, the defendant was indicted in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas for the two felony offenses. On January 29, 2019 the defendant plead to the felony failure to comply and the obstruction charge was dismissed. In the meantime, the misdemeanor offense, which arose out of the same act, remained pending in this court. As a result of the felony conviction, the defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the pending misdemeanor pursuant to Criminal Rules 1(B), 5(B)(1) and 48(B).

Findings

Only upon good cause shown should misdemeanor and felony offenses arising out of the same incident be adjudicated in separate courts.¹ The mere fact that charges from the same indictment are filed separately in different counts does mean they must remain separate through adjudication. As a matter of fact, those charges must be joined in the Court of Common Pleas just as they would had the charges been initiated in the municipal court and then bound over. The requirement that the misdemeanor and felony charges be together is not limited to instances where the felony complaint is subject to a preliminary hearing. Criminal Rule 5(B)(1) mandates that the misdemeanor complaint be bound over or transferred with the felony case. The manner in which the felony and misdemeanor charges are initiated does not affect the mandate set forth in Criminal Rule 5(B)(1) that the misdemeanor offense must be bound over or transferred with the felony case.

Yes, the prosecutor has discretion in the filing of criminal charges.² However, the prosecutor must exercise his discretion within the mandates set forth in the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Here, the prosecutor must demonstrate good cause to keep this complaint in the municipal court, while the companion felony charges have been adjudicated separately. No good cause has been shown. Instead, the prosecutor has argued these facts are not subject to Criminal Rule 5(B)(1). In support of its position the prosecutor cites:

It is clear from the language of the rule that it does not apply to the procedural posture in this case because there was neither a preliminary hearing nor a waiver of the preliminary hearing in regards to the municipal court felony. Rather, the prosecutor dismissed the municipal court felony after the grand jury returned an indictment for the same charge before a preliminary hearing was conducted or waived. Moreover, the procedural posture of this case does not fall within Crim.R. 5(B), as the rule states a "preliminary hearing shall not be held* * *if the defendant is indicted."

Crim.R. 5(B) applies to situations where the state files related felony and misdemeanor charges in the municipal court, and requires the misdemeanor charges to be bound over with the related felony charges. The rule does not address the situation of this case where the state files misdemeanor charges in municipal court and the grand jury returns a separate indictment on related felony charges.³

The court rejects the holding in Parker⁴ because it failed to apply the basic principle established in the Rule of Construction, Rule 1(B). The Rule of Construction requires criminal rules to be, "construed and applied to secure the fair, impartial, speedy and sure administration of justice, simplicity in procedure and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay.⁵

Additionally, it is well-established that section headings do not constitute any part of the law.⁶ Criminal Rule 5(B) is headed, "Preliminary hearing in felony cases; procedure." However, the text of the rule in part reads, "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." This language is quite clear. The misdemeanor should be with the felony case. The only time the misdemeanor should remain in municipal court is upon good cause. This direction does not provide for discretion.

Clearly, the intent of the rule is to ensure all charges, including the misdemeanor charge be adjudicated together. Otherwise, the defendant, his or her attorney, and the witnesses must appear in two courts for charges that arose out of the same incident. Additionally, two separate prosecutors must handle the charges, rather than one. Consequently, unjustifiable delay and expenses incur. Moreover, if convicted in both counts, the defendant may be subject to two community controls.⁷ These consequences are in direct contradiction of the purpose of Criminal Rule 1(B).

Also, to only apply the requirement to cases that are initiated in the municipal court is very unfair and quite arbitrary. Why should only a defendant whose charges were subject to a...