IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

[Pages:43]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

S/O EX REL., BRUCE A. JACKIM,

Case No. 08-0168

Relator/Appellant, . On Appeal from the Cuyahoga

County Court of Appeals,

V. . Eighth Appellate District -

Denial of Writ ofProhibition;

JUDGE RICHARD J. AMBROSE

Case No. 07-90785

Cuyahoga County Common

Respondent/Appellee. . Pleas Court, Criminal Division,

Case Number 03-CR-439646

MERIT BRIEF OF APPELLANT BRUCE A. JACKIM

CATHERINE M. BRADY (0026216) (COUNSEL OF RECORD) 7010 Pearl Road Middleburg Heights, Ohio 44130 Tel: (440) 842-1760

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT, BRUCE A. JACIOM

WILLIAM D. MASON (0037540) Prosecuting Attorney of Cuyahoga County

T. ALLAN REGAS (0067336) (COUNSEL OF RECORD) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center, Courts Tower, 9c' Floor Appellate Division 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Tel: (216) 443-7759 Fax: (216) 698-2270

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, JUDGE RICHARD J. AMBROSE

R

MAt^ ^ ^ ^000 CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................... ii-iv

STATEMENT OF FACTS . .. ... ... .. ..... .. ......... .. .... ... .. ... ..... .. ... ... .. ... ..... .. .. .. 1

ARGUMENT . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3

Proposition of Law No. I:

An original action seeking a writ of prohibition is an appropriate remedy for asserting a violation of one's right to a speedy trial when the error was raised prior to the first trial, mooted yet properly preserved on appeal, reasserted prior to a second trial and summarily denied by the trial court .............................................. 3

Proposition of Law No. II:

An original action seeking a writ of prohibition is an appropriate remedy for asserting a violation of one's right to a speedy trial where the trial court patently and unambiguously lacks subject matter jurisdiction to proceed where the prosecutor did not use standard time computations in his speedy trial count ...... ................................ 9

CONCLUSION .. ... . . .. .... ... .. . .. ... .. ....... .. . . ..... .... ..... ... .. ..... ... .. . .. ... .. . .... .... 13 PROOF OF SERVICE ............................................................................ 13

APPENDIX Appx. Page

Notice of Appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court (Jan. 23, 2008) ........................................................................ 1-11

Opinion of the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals (Jan. 9, 2008) ........................................................................... 12-18

Judgment Entry of the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals (Jan. 9, 2008 - Motion No. 404055) ................................................ 19

Judgment Entry of the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals (Jan. 9, 2008 - Motion No. 404563) .................................................. 20

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION? STATUTES; RULE (TABLE CONTINUED) Ohio Constitution, Section 10, Article I ....................................................... 21 R.C. ? 2945.71 .................................................................................... 22 R. C. ? 2945.72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 R.C. ? 2945.73 ..................................................................................... 24 Criminal Rule 45 . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page CASES: Akron v. Perdue, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 3607 (Aug. 28, 1996), Summit App. No. 17677, unreported ............................................................. 8 Cuyahoga Falls v. Ashcraft, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 6376 (Dec. 26, 1991), Summit App. No. 15129, unreported .............................................................. 8 Goldstein v. Christiansen (1994), 70 Ohio St. 3d 232, 235, 638 N.E.2d 541 .................9 Kelley v. State (1916), 94 Ohio St. 331, 114 N.E. 255 .......................................... 5 Novak v. State of Ohio (July 12, 2000) Cuyahoga App. No. 78263 ........................... 7 Ohio State Board of Pharmacy v. Kelley, No. 92 CA 3, Court of Appeals, 4`h App. Dist., Lawrence Co, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 804 ......................................8 Pesci v. Judge Foley Jones, Cuyahoga App. No. 89437, 2007-Ohio-2248 ....................6 Pollardv. United States ( 1957), 352 U.S. 354, 77 S.Ct. 481 ....................................5 Russell v. Tate (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 444, 444-445, 596 N.E.2d 1039 ....................... 7 State v. Baker ( 1993), 92 Ohio App. 3d 516, 526, 636 N.E.2d 363 .......................... 11 State v. Butcher ( 1986), 27 Ohio St. 3d 28, 31, 500 N.E.2d 1368 ........................ 10, 11 State v. Butler (1969), 19 Ohio St.2d 55, 57, 249 N.E.2d 818 ..................................10 State v. Grant, Butler App. No. CA2003-05-114, 2004 Ohio 2810, P9 .......................11 State v. Lautenslager (1996), 112 Ohio App.3d 108, 677 N.E.2d 1263 ............... 3, 8, 9 State v. Pachay (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 218, 416 N.E.2d 589 ..................................10 State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Court of Common Pleas of Butler County (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 188, 398 N.E.2d 777 ....................................................... 6 State ex rel. Corn v. Russo (2001) 90 Ohio St.3d 551, 740 N.E.2d 265 ........................8

iii

State ex rel. Dix v. McAllister ( 1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 107, 108, 689 N.E.2d 561............ 7 State ex rel. Hamilton v. Brunner, 105 Ohio St.3d 304, 825 N.E.2d 607 ..................... 6 State ex rel. Johnson v. County Court of Perry County (1986) 25 Ohio St.3d 53, 495 N.E.2d 16 .................................................................... 7 State ex rel. Jones v. Suster (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 70, 701 N.E.2d 1002 ................... 6 State ex rel. Kaylor v. Bruening (1997), 80 Ohio St. 3d 142, 144, 684 N.E.2d 1228...... 10 State ex rel. Ohio AFL-CIO v. Industrial Commission (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 458, 391 N.E.2d 315 ....................................................................................... 5 State ex rel. Pesci v. Lucci, 115 Ohio St.3d 218, 874 N.E.2d 774 .............................. 6 State et rel. Ruessman v. Flanagan (1992), 65 Ohio St. 3d 464, 466, 605 N.E.2d 31.... 10 State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster (1998), 84 Ohio St. 70, 74, 701 N.E.2d 1002............10 State ex rel. Williams v. Brigano, 78 Ohio St.3d 413, 678 N.E.2d 568 ........................ 7 Unites States v. Ewell (1966), 383 U.S. 116, 86 S.Ct. 773 ..................................... 5 Willoughby-Eastlake City School Dist v. Lake County Ct. of Common Pleas, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 1758 (Apr. 21, 2000) Lake App. No. 99-L-130, unreported......11 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS; STATUTES; RULES: United States Constitution, Sixth Amendment ............................................. 4, 10 Ohio Constitution, Section 10, Article I ...................................................... 5, 10 R.C. ? 2945.71 ........................................................................... 3, 9, 11, 12 R.C. ? 2945.72 ....................................................................................... 11 R.C. 2945.73 ................................................................................. 10, 11, 12 Criminal Rule 12(C)(1), (H) .................................................................. 11, 12 Criminal Rule 45 ..................................................................... 3, 8, 9, 11, 12 Appellate Rule 12(A)(1)(c) ...................................................................... 8 Appellate Rule 16, 16(A)(7), 16(E) ............................................................. 8

iv

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This case arises from the sua sponte dismissal by the Eighth District Court of Appeals of a Petition For Writ of Prohibition With Affidavit In Support filed by appellant Bruce A. Jackim ("Jackim"). (Appx. 12-18, 19, 20). The facts that follow are undisputed.

Jackim was arrested on Sunday, May 25, 2003 in Brooklyn, Ohio and incarcerated at the Brooklyn Police Department over the Memorial Day holiday before being arraigned at Parma Municipal Court on May 27, 2003, where he made bond and was ordered to appear at a preliminary hearing on June 2, 2003. (Supp. 1-4; Certified Parma Municipal Court Docket). At the hearing on June 2, 2003, the Court granted the prosecution's nolle prosequi whereupon Jackim was released and his bond returned. (Supp.l-4).

The Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Jackim on July 11, 2003. Jackim was arraigned in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court on July 25, 2003. (Supp. 5-28 Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Docket in case number CR-03-439646). Jackim signed a date certain and case specific waiver of speedy trial that was accepted by the court on August 4, 2004. (Supp. 5-28)[Page 10 of Certified Docket].

Jackim asserted his constitutional and statutory right to speedy trial pursuant to R.C. 2945.71 and 2945.73 by way of a motion to dismiss filed on July 15, 2005. (Supp. 2934; Motion to Dismiss). On July 19, 2005 the prosecution filed a motion in opposition without an actual count of the speedy trial days. Instead, the prosecution simply attached a copy of the docket in support of the opposition and concluded: "Defendant has not been denied his right to speedy trial as evidenced by the attached copy of the court docket..." (Supp. 35-45; Motion In Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Indictment). For

reasons untold, the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Docket does not refer to or include the twelve days accrued from the Parma Municipal Court proceedings (Supp. 5-28).

The Common Pleas Court denied Jackim's motion for speedy trial on July 19, 2005 stating that four (4) days remained on the statute, then revised the count upward to nine (9) days remaining on the statute as of July 20, 2005. (Supp. 46-48; Tr. 45). The trial court failed to consider the twelve days accrued from the originating municipal court's proceeding. (Supp. 5-28).

Jackim was convicted of assault; he filed a notice of appeal on September 12, 2005. In the appeal, Jackim asserted that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. (Supp. 5-28). The prosecution never addressed the speedy trial violation in their brief of appellee. The appellate court reversed and remanded based on the second assignment of error that dealt with the improper exclusion of surveillance videotape evidence and rendered moot the error relating to speedy trial violation. (Supp. 5-28).

After the remand, on June 12, 2007, Jackim filed a Second Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Speedy Trial. (Supp.49-72). Jackim then filed a Motion To Amend Second Motion To Dismiss Based Upon Speedy Trial on October 9, 2007. (Supp. 73-77). To facilitate the resolution of the speedy trial issue, Jackim filed, on July 21, 2005, a Motion to Correct Docket To Reflect Jury Impaneled and Sworn on July 21, 2005 to Establish the Tolling Date For the Speedy Trial Statute. (Supp. 78-93). The prosecution never responded directly to the motion to correct.

The trial court judge ordered that the prosecution respond and at the same time set a second trial date - sixty days from the court ordered response date of the prosecution. (Supp. 5-28). On November 6, 2007, the prosecution filed a State's Brief In Opposition to

2

Defendant's Motion To Dismis and provided a speedy trial count for the first time ever in

the case. (Supp. 94-107; State's Brief In Opposition to Defendant's Motion To Dismiss). On November 14, 2007, Jackim filed his Reply To State's Brief In Opposition to

Defendant's Motion To Dismiss. (Supp.108-129). Here, Jackim pointed out the most

obvious error of the prosecution: the failure to give Jackim triple-count credit for May 27,

2003 (the end of the incarceration period) pursuant to R.C. ? 2945.71(E) and Criminal

Rule 45(A). See State v. Lautenslager (1996), 112 Ohio App.3d 108, 677 N.E.2d 1263. Jackim's second motion to dismiss was denied without the trial court giving any

written opinion. Based upon good cause, Jackim filed the Petition For Writ of Prohibition With Affidavit In Support on December 14, 2007 asserting that the trial court patently lacked jurisdiction to proceed as speedy trial had expired on Apri120, 2005 (almost three

years earlier). The Eighth District Court of Appeals denied the Petition For Writ of

Prohibition sua sponte on January 9, 2008 concluding that an adequate remedy exists - in the event of a conviction - by way of appeal to the appellate court at the conclusion of the second trial by jury. (Appx. 12-18, 19, 20). Jackim filed a Notice ofAppeal of Right to the

Ohio Supreme Court on January 23, 2008. (Appx. 1-11). That same day, the prosecution

offered Jackim a minor misdemeanor with expungement after one year. The plea bargain

was rejected.

ARGUMENT

Proposition of Law No. I:

An original action seeking a writ of prohibition is an appropriate remedy for asserting a violation of one's right to a speedy trial when the error was raised prior to the first trial, mooted yet properly preserved on appeal, reasserted prior to the second trial and summarily denied by the trial court.

3

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download