State ex rel. Casanova v. Lutz , 2023 Ohio 1225 ( 2023 )

[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-1225THE 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
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 9512
January Term, 2023
(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.
_________________
3