Court Opinion

ID: 9929102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 18:09:30.587197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:10:14.420454
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Cook v. Cook, 2024-Ohio-328.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                      PERRY COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 JOSHUA D. COOK                                JUDGES:
                                               Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
         Plaintiff-Appellant                   Hon. John W. Wise, J.
                                               Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
 -vs-
                                               Case No. 23-CA-00007
 ISAAC T. COOK

         Defendant-Appellee                    OPINION

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                     Appeal from the Perry County Court of
                                               Common Pleas, Case No. 23-DV-00153

 JUDGMENT:                                     Affirmed

 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                       January 31, 2024

 APPEARANCES:

 For Plaintiff-Appellant                       For Defendant-Appellee

 JOSHUA D. COOK                                ISAAC T. COOK
 Inmate No. A785788                            1300 Parkview Place, Apt. 5B
 Chillicothe Correctional Institution          Roseville, Ohio 43777
 15802 State Route 104 N.
 Chillicothe, Ohio 45601
Perry County, Case No. 23-CA-00007                                                        2

Hoffman, P.J.
        {¶1}    Plaintiff-appellant Joshua Cook appeals the judgment entered by the Perry

County Common Pleas Court dismissing his complaint for a divorce from Defendant-

appellee Isaac Cook.

                                        STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

        {¶2}    On June 23, 2023, Appellant filed the instant action pro se, seeking a

divorce from Appellee. Appellant was incarcerated at all times throughout the pendency

of this case. Appellant alleged as grounds for divorce he and Appellee had lived separate

and apart for over one year, Appellee has been willfully absent for one year, and Appellee

was guilty of adultery. Appellee was served with the complaint, but did not file an answer.

        {¶3}    The case was set for a hearing on October 4, 2023. Appellant requested

the hearing be held by video so he could participate from prison. The trial court overruled

the motion after conferring with the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections

(hereinafter “ODRC”), which represented to the trial court it could not accommodate

lengthy hearings or video access for settlement negotiations. The trial court granted

Appellant leave to participate in hearings by telephone if he was able to show proof from

an agent of ODRC fourteen days prior to any scheduled hearings confirming telephone

access. The trial court also notified Appellant if he presented his testimony by telephone,

he must have a person authorized to administer oaths at his location.

        {¶4}    Appellee appeared for the hearing on October 4, 2023, despite having not

filed an answer Appellant did not appear for the hearing by telephone. By judgment filed

October 6, 2023, the trial court notified the parties if Appellee did not file an answer and

1 The facts underlying this appeal are not a part of the record before this Court.
Perry County, Case No. 23-CA-00007                                                      3

counterclaim within fourteen days, the case would be dismissed. Appellee did not file an

answer, and the trial court dismissed the action. It is from the October 24, 2023 judgment

of the trial court dismissing his complaint for divorce Appellant prosecutes his appeal,

assigning as error:

             I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DISMISSING

      AN UNCONTESTED DIVORCE AND ALLOWING THIS MATTER TO BE

      DISMISSED WITHOUT GRANTING AN UNCONTESTED DIVORCE.

             II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF

      DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH

      AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE

      ONE SECTION TEN OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION BY DISMISSING AN

      UNCONTESTED DIVORCE.

             III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND DEPRIVED APPELLANT

      ACCESS TO THE COURTS TO ATTEND HIS HEARINGS AS

      REQUESTED AND IGNORED HIS REQUEST TO ORDER ODRC TO

      HAVE APPELLANT PRESENT VIA PHONE OR VIDEO.

             IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT GRANTING AN

      UNCONTESTED DIVORCE.

             V. THE TRIAL COURT WAS BIASED AND DID NOT AFFORD THE

      APPELLANT THE SAME RIGHTS AS A HETEROSEXUAL PERSON; AS

      THIS DIVORCE IS RELATED TO A SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
Perry County, Case No. 23-CA-00007                                                       4

                VI. THE DISMISSAL OF THIS MATTER VIOLATES THE UNITED

        STATES CONSTITUTION’S PROHIBITION AGAINST CRUEL AND

        UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS.

        {¶5}    This case comes to us on the accelerated calendar. App.R. 11.1, which

governs accelerated calendar cases, provides, in pertinent part:

                (E) Determination and judgment on appeal.

                The appeal will be determined as provided by App.R. 11.1. It shall

        be sufficient compliance with App.R. 12(A) for the statement of the reason

        for the court's decision as to each error to be in brief and conclusionary

        form.

                The decision may be by judgment entry in which case it will not be

        published in any form.

        {¶6}    This appeal shall be considered in accordance with the aforementioned

rule.

                                             I., II., IV.

        {¶7}    In his first, second, and fourth assignments of error, Appellant argues the

trial court erred in dismissing his complaint for an uncontested divorce.

        {¶8}    It is apparent from the trial court’s entry following the October 4, 2023

hearing, Appellant did not appear via telephone, as previously allowed by the trial court,
Perry County, Case No. 23-CA-00007                                                           5

to present testimony establishing his grounds for divorce. The trial court’s post-hearing

judgment noted Appellee did appear for the hearing.

       {¶9}   A transcript of the proceedings from the hearing was requested by Appellant

at state expense. The motion was denied, and we do not have a transcript of the

proceedings of the hearing. However, as a result of the hearing, the trial court entered

judgment giving Appellee fourteen days to file an answer or counterclaim, and notified the

parties failure to so file would cause the action to be dismissed. In the absence of a

transcript demonstrating evidence was presented to the trial court demonstrating grounds

for divorce were established, we have no choice but to presume regularity in the

proceedings below and affirm. Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199,

400 N.E.2d 384, 385 (1980).

       {¶10} The first, second, and fourth assignments of error are overruled.

                                                 III.

       {¶11} Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying his request to participate in

the hearing by video or telephone.

       {¶12} An incarcerated prisoner has no absolute due process right to attend a civil

trial to which he is a party. E.g., Pryor v. Pryor, 4th Dist. Ross No. 09CA3096, 2009-Ohio-

6670, 2009 WL 4862140, ¶ 29. “’A ruling on the request of an incarcerated criminal to

prosecute a * * * civil action by requiring penal authorities to transport him to a preliminary

hearing or trial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Mancino v. City of

Lakewood, 36 Ohio App.3d 219, 221, 523 N.E.2d 332 (8th Dist. 1987). An abuse of

discretion connotes that the court's attitude is arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable.

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 140 (1983).
Perry County, Case No. 23-CA-00007                                                          6

       {¶13} The trial court inquired as to the ability of ODRC to allow Appellant to

participate by video, and was informed a video hearing could not be accommodated. The

trial court granted Appellant leave to participate in hearings by telephone if he was able

to show proof from an agent of ODRC fourteen days prior to any scheduled hearings

confirming telephone access. The trial court also notified Appellant if he presented his

testimony by telephone, he must have a person authorized to administer oaths at his

location. Appellant failed to avail himself of the procedure set forth by the trial court to

allow him to participate by telephone. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion

in its provision for allowing Appellant access to the court.

       {¶14} The third assignment of error is overruled.

                                                 V.

       {¶15} In his fifth assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court did not accord

him the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples seeking divorce. The record does

not establish Appellant’s claim he was treated differently based on the fact this case

involved a same-sex marriage.

       {¶16} The fifth assignment of error is overruled.

                                                 VI.

       {¶17} In his sixth assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court’s dismissal

of the complaint for divorce constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.           The Eighth

Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is a concept applicable

to criminal punishment, and does not apply to dismissal of the instant civil action.
Perry County, Case No. 23-CA-00007                                             7

      {¶18} The sixth assignment of error is overruled.

      {¶19} The judgment of the Perry County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, P.J.
Wise, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur