Opinion ID: 6318198
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: {¶ 35} Based on the evidence and the arguments of the parties, we deny the requests for writs of prohibition and mandamus. Writs denied. O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., concur. BRUNNER, J., concurs in judgment only, with an opinion. _________________ BRUNNER, J., concurring in judgment only. {¶ 36} Relators, Barberton Municipal Court Administrative Judge Todd McKenney, and Judge Jill Flagg Lanzinger in case No. 2020-1405 and Akron Municipal Court Judges Annalisa S. Williams and David Hamilton in case No. 2021-0043, brought this action to stop respondents, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and its administrative judge, Amy Corrigall Jones, from appointing counsel for indigent criminal defendants in cases in municipal courts. This court finds that the municipal-court judges have not established that common-pleas-court judges are in fact making such appointments and that nothing in the local rules clearly states that the common-pleas-court judges may do so. {¶ 37} I concur in judgment only, because I do not find the facts to be as unequivocal as expressed in the majority opinion. The municipal-court judges submitted more than 2,000 pages of emails sent from the common pleas court to a municipal-court administrator identifying attorneys appointed for defendants in cases that arose in the municipal court. The administrator submitted an affidavit stating that each of the emails “either listed the attorney retained or a new attorney appointed by Summit County Common Pleas.” Having determined that relators have not provided enough context to understand the timing or purpose of the emails, the majority states that it will not “ ‘search the record or formulate legal arguments on behalf of the parties.’ ” Majority opinion, ¶ 28, quoting State v. Quartermain, 13 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 140 Ohio St.3d 464, 2014-Ohio-4034, 19 N.E.3d 900, ¶ 19. The majority’s statement could be understood as suggesting that there is no evidentiary value to the emails supporting relators’ claims. {¶ 38} While the emails (on a cursory review of their contents) may not be direct evidence that the common-pleas-court judges appointed attorneys to represent defendants in municipal court, certain inferences may be drawn from them. A number of the emails were sent to the municipal court and inform that court of the name of the attorney who has been appointed in the case, with that attorney’s name also listed as the municipal-court attorney. Specifically, the subject line in each of the emails submitted by the municipal-court administrator is “ATTORNEY APPOINTMENT,” and each email begins, “Notice of SCCP APPOINTMENT.” The first email was sent on November 25, 2020, and states, “JORDAN E. KNABB HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THE ABOVE DEFENDANT BY SCCP ASSIGNMENT JUDGE: AMY CORRIGALL JONES.” It then states, “MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY: JORDAN E. KNABB.” (All capitalizations sic.) {¶ 39} Thus, while the evidence offered by relators may not involve an entry or order from the common pleas court appointing the attorneys in the municipal-court case, it supports—to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the view of the trier of fact—the municipal court judges’ allegations that the commonpleas-court judges were attempting to exercise authority in the municipal courts. {¶ 40} Conversely, I agree with the majority in that a court “speaks only through its journal and not by oral pronouncement,” Schenley v. Kauth, 160 Ohio St. 109, 111, 113 N.E.2d 625 (1953), or in this case, by emails or press releases. I also agree that the common-pleas-court judges established a process by which the contract between the county public-defender commission and the Legal Defender’s Office of Summit County would be carried out not only in their court but also in the municipal courts, refusing to authorize any other attorneys than those stated in 14 January Term, 2022 the emails to be paid, leaving the municipal court with no other feasible way to appoint counsel. Finally, I agree that because there do not appear to be any orders from the common pleas court appointing attorneys in cases other than in the common-pleas-court cases, the precise conduct that this court is being asked to prohibit is not clearly identified. I would further note that given that neither municipal courts nor courts of common pleas have exclusive jurisdiction over felony matters prior to an indictment, see R.C. 1901.20(B) and 2931.03, I cannot say the common-pleas-court judges lack authority to proceed under their promulgated local rules. {¶ 41} In the end, it is every court’s duty to individuals accused of a crime, and to the state, that federal and state constitutional requirements for fair trials must be observed and guaranteed. Courts must constitutionally provide competent counsel in criminal proceedings to those who are indigent, and this must be central to the process, with territorial differences and interests subordinated to this singular purpose. _________________ Mayle, L.L.C., Andrew R. Mayle, Ronald J. Mayle, and Benjamin G. Padanilam, for relators in case No. 2021-0043. The Pattakos Law Firm, L.L.C., Peter Pattakos, and Rachel Hazelet, for relators in case No. 2020-1405. Isaac, Wiles & Burkholder, L.L.C., Mark Landes, Donald C. Brey, C. Awele Nwajei, and Madeline Shanahan, for respondents. Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, for amicus curiae Office of the Ohio Public Defender, in support of respondents in case No. 2020-1405. Kushner & Hamed Co., L.P.A., Phillip S. Kushner, Michael R. Hamed, and Brandon Mordue, for amicus curiae Summit County Legal Defender’s Office, in support of respondents. _________________ 15