State ex rel. Davis v. Crush
Decision Date | 16 June 1976 |
Parties | , 75 O.O.2d 441 The STATE ex rel. DAVIS, Appellant, v. CRUSH, Judge, Hamilton County Municipal Court, et al., Appellees. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Boyd, Wyler & McKew and William S. Wyler, Cincinnati, for appellant.
Thomas A. Luebbers, City Solicitor, Paul J. Gorman, Prosecutor, and K. C. Collett, Assistant Prosecutor, for appellees.
While the appellant raises two issues for this court's consideration, we are of the opinion that this cause can be, and has previously been decided on the second proposition of law. Succinctly stated, appellant maintains that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing her compalint for a writ of prohibition. The appellees based their motion for dismissal on the contention that a writ of prohibition is not the proper method to test the power of a Municipal Court to entertain jurisdiction over misdemeanor charges arising out of the same incident in which a felony indictment was previously disposed of in the Court of Common Pleas. In State ex rel. Susi v. Flowers (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 11, 330 N.E.2d 662, this court was presented with a similar situation. However, in that case, the misdemeanor charges in the Municipal Court were disposed of first. The appellants in Susi, supra, then sought a writ of prohibition against the judge of the Court of Common Pleas requesting that he be prevented from exercising further jurisdiction in the felony indictment. The appellants contended, as does the appellant in this case, that the remaining charge was barred by the double jeopardy clause of the Ohio and federal Constitutions. They relied upon Ashe v. Swenson (1970), 397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469, and Owens v. Campbell (1971), 27 Ohio St.2d 264, 272 N.E.2d 116, as does appellant herein.
This court, in Susi, in a per curiam opinion, stated, 43 Ohio St.2d at page 13, 330 N.E.2d at page 664:
'Neither Ashe nor Owens supports the position taken by the appellants herein, for two reasons.
In the instant matter the appellant entered a plea of guilty in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County. It may be argued that she plead to a lesserincluded offense, the same being a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Thomas
...U.S. 1006, 96 S.Ct. 436, 46 L.Ed.2d 378 (by implication). However, this theory was seriously questioned in State ex rel. Davis v. Crush (1976) 46 Ohio St.2d 360, 363, 348 N.E.2d 725, and was finally laid to rest in the recent case of State ex rel. Wall v. Grossman (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 4, 3......
-
Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Lacinak, 76-2
... ... Essentially, he again admitted them. He did state that he felt he was entitled to the rather substantial fee as detailed in ... ...