State v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 28 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | 19 MA 0101,Nos. 19 MA 0100,19 MA 0102,19 MA 0104,19 MA 0106,19 MA 0105,s. 19 MA 0100 |
| Citation | 2020 Ohio 5294,162 N.E.3d 113 |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eldon LEWIS, Marquise Lewis, Markiese Smith, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Atty. Kathleen Thompson, Sr. Assistant Law Director, 9 West Front Street, 3rd Floor, Youngstown, Ohio 44503; Atty. Jeffrey Moliterno, Assistant Prosecutor, 26 South Phelps Street, Fourth Floor, Youngstown, Ohio 44503, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
No Brief Filed, for Defendants-Appellees.
BEFORE: Carol Ann Robb, Gene Donofrio, Cheryl L. Waite, Judges.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶1} The City of Youngstown appeals the decision of Youngstown Municipal Court sua sponte dismissing the public indecency complaints against Defendants-Appellees Eldon Lewis, Marquise Lewis, and Markiese Smith. The trial court determined it did not have jurisdiction over the complaints because Appellees are inmates at the Ohio State Penitentiary in Youngstown and pursuant to the language of R.C. 2941.39 and two Ohio Attorney General opinions, there was no authority to order the removal of Appellees from the penitentiary to stand trial for the misdemeanor charges. The arguments raised by the City in this appeal address whether the trial court's sua sponte dismissal of the complaint was an abuse of discretion and whether the trial court incorrectly determined that it did not have jurisdiction. For the reasons expressed below, the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed the complaints without allowing the state, at the minimum, to file a brief on the issue of whether the municipal court had subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, the municipal court incorrectly determined it was without jurisdiction based on a 1987 Ohio Attorney General Decision. The trial court's dismissal orders are reversed and the matters are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
{¶2} This is a consolidation of six appellate cases involving three Appellees. Each Appellee is an inmate at the Ohio State Penitentiary in Youngstown, Ohio and was charged with public indecency under either subsection (A)(1) or (A)(2) of R.C. 2907.09 for either masturbating in front of prison employees or for the exposure of private parts (penis) to prison employees.
{¶3} Appellee Eldon Lewis was charged with R.C. 2907.09(A)(2) (masturbation) for incidents that occurred on January 8, 2019 and January 21, 2019. 1/28/19 Complaints. He was charged with R.C. 2907.09(A)(1) () for an incident that occurred on March 15, 2019. 3/21/19 Complaint. He was arraigned for the first two incidents on February 13, 2019. He was arraigned on May 7, 2019 for the third offense. Appellee Eldon Lewis pled not guilty, waived his right to a speedy trial, and requested a jury trial.
{¶4} Appellee Marquise Lewis was charged with R.C. 2907.09(A)(1) () for incidents that occurred on March 19, 2019 and April 12, 2019. 3/21/19 Complaint; 4/16/19 Complaint. He was arraigned on May 7, 2019 for both offenses. He pled not guilty and waived his speedy trial rights.
{¶5} Appellee Markiese Smith was charged with R.C. 2907.09(A)(1) () for an incident that occurred on March 15, 2019. 3/21/19 Complaint. He was arraigned on May 7, 2019. He pled not guilty and waived his right to a speedy trial.
{¶6} The trial court held status court only hearings in each of these cases in June, July and August; a total of four court only status hearings were held in each case. Two weeks after the last status hearing, the trial court sua sponte dismissed the cases stating the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. 8/15/19 J.E. Based on the 1987 and 2002 opinions from the Ohio Attorney General the trial court found, "a prisoner in a state correctional institution may not be removed to stand trial on a pending misdemeanor charge." 8/15/19 J.E. It then stated, "Therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the cases be dismissed, as this Court has been given no jurisdiction to hear such a matter by the General Assembly." 8/15/19 J.E.
{¶7} The state filed a timely appeal from the trial court's decisions.
"The trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint without holding an evidentiary hearing or affording the state an opportunity to object."
{¶8} The city asserts the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed the charges without giving it the opportunity to object and argue against dismissal. It asserts this amounted to an abuse of discretion.
{¶9} A trial court's dismissal of criminal charges is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Cole, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 26190, 2012-Ohio-4027, 2012 WL 3833958, ¶ 7, citing State v. Busch, 76 Ohio St.3d 613, 616, 669 N.E.2d 1125 (1996). An abuse of discretion "implies that a trial court's decision is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable." State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980).
{¶10} We have previously explained:
Generally, "[a] court has the ‘inherent power to regulate the practice before it and protect the integrity of its proceedings.’ " State v. Busch, 76 Ohio St.3d 613, 615, 669 N.E.2d 1125 (1996), quoting Royal Indemn. Co. v. J.C. Penney Co., 27 Ohio St.3d 31, 33–34, 501 N.E.2d 617 (1986). Crim.R. 48(B) provides that "[i]f the court over objection of the state dismisses an indictment, information, or complaint, it shall state on the record its findings of fact and reasons for the dismissal." The Ohio Supreme Court explained the effect of Crim.R. 48(B) in the Busch decision: (Emphasis added.) Id. * * * Generally, it is an abuse of discretion for the court to dismiss charges under Crim.R. 48(B) solely for the reason that the evidence is insufficient to support conviction. State v. Nihiser, 4th Dist. No. 03CA21, 2004-Ohio-4067, 2004 WL 1737862, ¶ 17. Nevertheless, a trial judge is allowed great flexibility in determining when the judicial process is no longer useful in a given case such that a dismissal under Crim.R. 48(B) is warranted. State v. Montiel, 185 Ohio App.3d 362, 2009-Ohio-6589, 924 N.E.2d 375 (2d Dist.), ¶ 15.
State v. Sanders , 7th Dist. No. 12 CO 35, 2013-Ohio-5220, 3 N.E.3d 749, ¶ 13.
{¶11} Crim.R. 48(B) does not indicate the process for dismissal, but given the language of the rule that it can be dismissed over objection of the state, it is implied that the rule contemplates an evidentiary hearing or at minimum the opportunity to respond to the intent to dismiss. See State v. Harris , 2nd Dist. No. 23231, 186 Ohio App.3d 359, 2010-Ohio-837, 928 N.E.2d 456, ¶ 15 (Donovan, J., concurring opinion), citing State v. Montiel, 185 Ohio App.3d 362, 2009-Ohio-6589, 924 N.E.2d 375 (Grady, J., concurring opinion). Likewise, this court has stated:
[I]t is both appropriate and necessary to proffer evidence at a Crim.R. 48(B) dismissal hearing since it is, by its very nature, an evidentiary hearing. State v. Anguiano, 2d Dist. No.2011 CA 9, 2012-Ohio-2094, 2012 WL 1657549, ¶ 12. The trial court is required to state on the record its findings of fact supporting the dismissal. Crim.R. 48(B). Therefore, "[ Crim.R. 48(B) ] contemplates an evidentiary hearing from which findings of fact may be made, and which is necessary for subsequent appellate review of any error assigned by the state regarding an objection by the state that the court overruled." State v. Montiel, 185 Ohio App.3d 362, 2009-Ohio-6589, 924 N.E.2d 375, ¶ 22 (J. Grady, concurring).
State v. Sanders , 7th Dist. No. 12 CO 35, 2013-Ohio-5220, 3 N.E.3d 749, ¶ 21.
{¶12} Consequently, given the law, at minimum there was a requirement for the state to be permitted to file a brief in opposition to dismissal. In the case at hand, the state was not given the opportunity to present an argument opposing dismissal. While there were multiple status hearings, the court characterized those hearings as court only hearings. This assignment of error has merit.
{¶13} These three assignments of error address the trial court's decision that it was without jurisdiction. The trial court relied on two Ohio Attorney General opinions - 1987 opinion and 2002 opinion - to conclude that it did not have jurisdiction.
{¶14} At the outset it is noted that opinions from the Ohio Attorney General have no precedential effect and are not binding. State ex rel. Van Dyke v. Pub. Emp. Retirement Bd., 99 Ohio St.3d 430, 2003-Ohio-4123, 793 N.E.2d 438, ¶ 40. However, they are considered persuasive authority. Id.
{¶15} In the 1987 decision, two questions were posed to the Attorney General. The first was whether an inmate in a penitentiary can be removed from the institution to be tried on a misdemeanor charge. Ohio Attorney General Opinion 87-068 (1987). The second question was if the removal was proper, what statutory authority enables a law director to prosecute the inmate. Id. The Ohio Attorney General answered the first question by indicating the inmate could not be removed. Id. Therefore, the Attorney...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Cleveland v. Coleman
...to the felony sentence, the misdemeanor sentence may be completed prior to the completion of the felony sentence." State v. Lewis , 7th Dist., 2020-Ohio-5294, 162 N.E.3d 113, ¶ 25. The goal of R.C. 2941.401 is to permit an inmate to have all cases resolved during the inmate's term of impris......