Court Opinion

ID: 9901938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 18:08:28.576558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:42.009529
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Booker, 2023-Ohio-4216.]

                               COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO,                                     :

                 Plaintiff-Appellant,              :
                                                             No. 112578
                 v.                                :

SHERITA BOOKER,                                    :

                 Defendant-Appellee.               :

                                JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                 JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
                 RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 22, 2023

          Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                             Case No. CR-22-672696-A

                                             Appearances:

                 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
                 Attorney, and Owen Knapp, Assistant Prosecuting
                 Attorney, for appellant.

                 Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and
                 Francis Cavallo, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

                   Appellant state of Ohio appeals the decision of the trial court to

dismiss the case with prejudice. Upon review, we reverse the decision of the trial
court, and we remand with instructions for the trial court to vacate its dismissal with

prejudice and to enter a dismissal without prejudice.

               On July 26, 2022, Booker was charged under a two-count indictment.

Count 1 charged Booker with having weapons while under disability, a felony of the

third degree in violation of “R.C 2923.13(A)(2),” and alleged that on or about May

28, 2022, Booker

      did knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm or dangerous
      ordnance and she was under indictment for or has been convicted of
      any felony offense of violence, to wit: the said Sherita Booker, on or
      about September 21, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga
      County, Ohio, Case No. CR05 469018, having been indicted for or
      convicted of the crime of Drug Possession, in violation of Revised Code
      Section 2925.11 of the State of Ohio.

(Emphasis added.) Count 2 was for improper handling of firearms in a motor

vehicle, a felony of the fourth degree in violation of R.C. 2923.16(B). Each count

included a specification for forfeiture of a weapon pursuant to R.C. 2941.1417(A).

Booker entered a plea of not guilty to the charges.

               After the completion of discovery and several continuances, the case

was called for a bench trial on March 13, 2023. At that time, the state made an oral

motion to amend the indictment pursuant to Crim.R. 7. The state maintained that

Count 1 had a “clerical error” in that it was “charged as having weapons under a

disability under 2923.13(A)(2), stating that this was a felony of violence that has a

prior * * * that we are using for that count” and it “cites a crime of drug possession

as well as a case number.” The state wished to “amend it to [R.C.] 2923.13(A)(3)

because under (A)(2) we would need to prove that there was a felony of violence.”
The state indicated that the journal entries for the drug offense would comply under

(A)(3), and therefore sought to amend the indictment. Appellee objected to the

state’s request, which was being made on the day of trial, and argued that the state

should have been aware of this much earlier and also that the bill of particulars did

not set out this change.

               The trial court denied the state’s request to amend the indictment.

The trial court rejected the state’s claim of a clerical error and stated that it sounded

“like an error by an attorney who put in one section and then that section [did] not

comply with the information below [it]” and that it appeared as though the

attorney’s secretary entered the information that she received.

               The state then requested both counts in the case be dismissed without

prejudice, but appellee requested the case be dismissed with prejudice, arguing that

the “case has been pending a long time.” The state did not believe a dismissal with

prejudice would be appropriate given that appellant was on notice of the offense

charged in Count 1 and that the degree of the offense would not change. The state

also requested that Count 2 be dismissed in order to avoid any type of double

jeopardy issues since the charges arose from the same incident.

               Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice. The trial

court expressed that “had the State of Ohio dismissed this case prior to the day of

trial, then the dismissal without prejudice would not have been an issue. They could

have done it on their own and that’s that.” However, the trial court’s stated reason
for dismissing the case with prejudice was that “this is a little late to [dismiss] it

without prejudice because this is the day of trial.”

               The trial court proceeded to issue a journal entry that dismissed the

case with prejudice. This appeal followed.

               Under its sole assignment of error, the state claims “[t]he trial court

erred when it dismissed [the] case with prejudice in the absence of a statutory or

constitutional violation that would bar further prosecution.”1

               Initially, we are not persuaded by appellee’s argument claiming the

state failed to appeal the trial court’s order denying the state’s motion to dismiss

without prejudice or to object to the dismissal of Count 2 with prejudice. The record

clearly reflects that the parties disputed whether the case should be dismissed with

or without prejudice. After the trial court denied the state’s motion to amend the

indictment, the state requested both counts be dismissed without prejudice, and

appellee requested the case be dismissed with prejudice. As the state argues on

appeal, “[i]nherent in the State’s oral motion to dismiss the case without prejudice

is the objection to a dismissal with prejudice.” Moreover, the state filed its notice of

appeal from the journal entry of the trial court that dismissed the case with

prejudice, rather than without prejudice. “‘Pursuant to R.C. 2945.67(A), the state

may appeal the dismissal of an indictment whether the dismissal is with or without

prejudice.’” State v. Troisi, 169 Ohio St.3d 514, 2022-Ohio-3582, 206 N.E.3d 695,

      1 We note that the state has not challenged the trial court’s denial of its motion to

amend the indictment.
¶ 39, quoting State v. Craig, 116 Ohio St.3d 135, 2007-Ohio-5752, 876 N.E.2d 957,

¶ 16. Accordingly, we shall consider whether the trial court erred in dismissing the

case with prejudice, rather than without prejudice.2

               Crim.R. 48 addresses dismissals in criminal cases and requires that if

the court dismisses the indictment over the state’s objection, the court shall “state

on the record its findings of fact and reasons for the dismissal.” Although Crim.R. 48

does not expressly indicate when a case may be dismissed with prejudice as opposed

to without prejudice, “this court has repeatedly stated that a trial court may dismiss

a case with prejudice only where there is a deprivation of a defendant’s

constitutional or statutory rights, the violation of which would bar further

prosecution.” State v. Nix, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111803, 2023-Ohio-1143, ¶ 13,

citing State v. Strong, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100766, 2014-Ohio-4209, ¶ 9; State

v. Walton, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87347, 2006-Ohio-4771, ¶ 5; see also State v.

Payne, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111693, 2023-Ohio-1294, ¶ 6-8. In Troisi, the

Supreme Court of Ohio held that “[d]ismissals with prejudice are more appropriate

for cases involving the deprivation of a defendant’s rights to a speedy trial or against

double jeopardy, which would preclude further proceedings.” Id. at ¶ 40, citing

State v. Michailides, 2018-Ohio-2399, 114 N.E.3d 382, ¶ 37 (8th Dist.); State v.

Dunn, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101648, 2015-Ohio-3138, ¶ 22.

      2 Insofar as appellee fails to address the central issue raised on appeal, this court

is not obligated to create, nor should it sua sponte provide, legal arguments on behalf of
parties. See State v. Quarterman, 140 Ohio St.3d 464, 2014-Ohio-4034, 19 N.E.3d 900,
¶ 19.
               The record reflects that appellee did not make any argument that

there is a deprivation of her statutory or constitutional rights, the violation of which

would bar further prosecution, and the trial court made no such finding. In

requesting the case be dismissed with prejudice, appellee argued that “[t]his case

has been pending a long time” and that “this is the third time it’s been set for trial.”

The trial court’s reason for dismissing the case with prejudice was that “this is a little

late to do it without prejudice because this is the day of trial.” Although we certainly

do not condone the state’s delay in this matter, the trial court erred by dismissing

the case with prejudice.3 See State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87348, 2006-

Ohio-4772, ¶ 3 (finding trial court erred in dismissing indictment with prejudice

when there was no indication the court found any constitutional or statutory

violation).

               Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s decision, and we remand the

matter to the trial court with instructions to vacate its dismissal with prejudice and

to enter a dismissal without prejudice.

               Judgment reversed, and case remanded with instructions.

      It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      3  The state also argues that its Crim.R. 7 motion to amend the indictment would
not have changed the identity of the crime and that appellant was on notice that her prior
drug conviction would be used as the underlying offense. We make no determination on
those issues herein.
      It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.

      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

______________________
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J., and
LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR