Case Title: State ex rel. Casanova v. Lutz

Citation: 2023-Ohio-1225

Docket Number: 2022-1101

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2023-04-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Casanova v. Lutz, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-1225.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2023-OHIO-1225 
THE STATE EX REL. CASANOVA, APPELLANT, v. LUTZ, SHERIFF, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Casanova v. Lutz, Slip Opinion No.  
2023-Ohio-1225.] 
Habeas corpus—Excessive bail—Following conviction, any error concerning the 
issue of pretrial bail is moot—Appellant has not shown that mootness 
exception applies—Appeal dismissed. 
(No. 2022-1101—Submitted February 7, 2023—Decided April 18, 2023.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Muskingum County, No. CT2022-0051. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Ethan Casanova, appeals the Fifth District Court of 
Appeals’ decision setting his bail at $250,000.  After Casanova filed his appeal, he 
pleaded guilty and was sentenced.  We therefore dismiss the appeal as moot. 
{¶ 2} In June 2022, Casanova was indicted on several charges and arrested.  
The trial court set bail at $500,000.  Casanova filed a petition for a writ of habeas 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2 
corpus in the Fifth District claiming that his bail was unconstitutionally excessive.  
The Fifth District granted the writ and reduced Casanova’s bail to $250,000.  
Casanova appealed to this court, arguing that his bail was still unconstitutionally 
excessive.  After Casanova filed his appeal, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced.  
Appellee, Muskingum County Sheriff Matt Lutz, has filed a motion to dismiss the 
appeal as moot. 
{¶ 3} Following conviction, any error concerning the issue of pretrial bail is 
moot.  State v. Hughbanks, 99 Ohio St.3d 365, 2003-Ohio-4121, 792 N.E.2d 1081, 
¶ 35.  Casanova agrees that he is no longer entitled to relief in habeas corpus.  But 
he requests review of his claim nonetheless, arguing that an exception to the 
mootness doctrine applies because his appeal raises an issue capable of repetition 
yet evading review, a debatable constitutional question, and a matter of great public 
interest.  See Franchise Developers, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 30 Ohio St.3d 28, 505 
N.E.2d 966 (1987), paragraph one of the syllabus.  An issue is capable of repetition 
yet evading review if the challenged action is too short in duration to be fully 
litigated prior to its cessation and there is a reasonable expectation that the parties 
will be subject to the same action again.  M.R. v. Niesen, 167 Ohio St.3d 404, 2022-
Ohio-1130, 193 N.E.3d 548, ¶ 11.  “It is not enough for an issue to be capable of 
repetition between some parties; the issue must be capable of repetition between 
the ‘same’ parties.”  Id. at ¶ 12, quoting United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, __ U.S. 
__, __, 138 S.Ct. 1532, 1540, 200 L.Ed.2d 792 (2018).  Casanova argues that 
because speedy-trial rules generally require that defendants held in jail pending trial 
for felonies be tried within 90 days, see R.C. 2945.71, this court will never have a 
chance to consider questions related to excessive bail in time to rule prior to the 
relevant trial. 
{¶ 4} Casanova has not shown that a mootness exception applies in this 
case.  First, this court has ruled on appeals regarding excessive bail within 90 days.  
See, e.g., DuBose v. McGuffey, 168 Ohio St.3d 1, 2022-Ohio-8, 195 N.E.3d 951 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
3 
(notice of appeal filed November 16, 2021, and decision issued January 4, 2022).  
Second, the mootness exception requires that there be a reasonable expectation that 
the issue will arise again between the same parties.  It is unlikely that this issue will 
arise again between these parties. 
{¶ 5} For these reasons, we grant Lutz’s motion to dismiss the appeal as 
moot.  Casanova’s requests for oral argument are denied. 
Appeal dismissed. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, 
and DETERS, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Benbow Law Offices, L.L.C., and Brian W. Benbow, for appellant. 
Ronald W. Welch, Muskingum County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mark A. 
Zanghi, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________