[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.

_________________