DocketNumber: Case No. 04AP-495.
Citation Numbers: 2004 Ohio 6452
Judges: BRYANT, J.
Filed Date: 12/2/2004
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Assignment of Error No. 1. On page two (2) of the Trial Courts [sic] Decision and Judgment Entry, it is stated, "A party may appeal a decision of the Commission pursuant to R.C.
Because appellant attempted to appeal to the common pleas court an order that is not appealable, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Appellant Robinson, Treasurer of Marion County Citizens for Tax Reform ("CTR"), and other individuals, filed a complaint with the commission against Josh Daniels, a member of the Marion County Board of Elections. The case was scheduled for a preliminary review on September 18, 2003 before a panel of the commission. Robinson, Daniels, and two other witnesses affiliated with CTR were sworn in at the hearing and testified regarding the allegations in the complaint, and members of the panel questioned the witnesses. Ultimately, the commission voted unanimously that no violation of Ohio law occurred, and it dismissed appellant's complaint.
{¶ 3} The commission sent notice of the dismissal on October 7, 2003, and appellant appealed. Although the notice of appeal was timely filed with the commission on October 21, 2003, it was not filed in the common pleas court until October 23, 2003. Concluding appellant's notice of appeal was not timely filed in the common pleas court under R.C.
{¶ 4} In his single assignment of error, appellant asserts the trial court misapplied the time constraints of R.C
{¶ 5} R.C.
{¶ 6} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that "[t]he fifteen-day appeal period provided in R.C.
{¶ 7} In Richter, however, the complaint proceeded to a full adjudicative hearing, after which the commission found a violation of law and imposed a fine. The commission asserts that because it here dismissed appellant's complaint after the preliminary review, the commission's order is not adjudicative in nature and thus is not appealable.
{¶ 8} Without question, the commission's notice to appellant is at odds with the position the commission is advancing on appeal in this court. Although the notice the commission sent to appellant advised him of his right to appeal the commission's determination, the commission before this court contends its determination is not appealable.
{¶ 9} No inherent right to appeal from an administrative agency's decision exists absent constitutional or statutory authority. State ex rel. Citizens for Van Meter v. OhioElections Comm. (1992),
{¶ 10} Ohio Adm. Code
All cases * * * shall be subject to the following provisions. A preliminary review of the allegations shall be held by a probable cause panel or the full commission, at the discretion of the staff attorney to the commission. At the preliminary review stage, the body hearing the case shall review all pleadings, evidence, and motions before it to determine jurisdiction, sufficiency of the complaint, and whether probable cause exists for the full commission to determine whether a violation of Ohio election law has occurred.
(1) At the preliminary review stage of the proceedings, the body hearing the case shall not hear arguments, receive evidence or take testimony unless:
(a) All parties (whether pro se or through counsel) have filed a stipulation agreeing to such procedure and a majority of the members present, in their sole discretion, agree to do so; or
(b) Any member wishes to request specific information which will aid in a proper determination of the matter at the preliminary review stage.
Thus, if the preliminary review is held before a probable cause panel or the full commission, the hearing body may dismiss the case if, among other things, no probable cause exists. Ohio Adm. Code
{¶ 11} This court has held a complainant has no right to appeal from the commission's determination that a complaint lacks probable cause. Id.; Common Cause/Ohio v. Ohio Elections Comm.,
{¶ 12} "The general lack of appeal from commission decisions makes sense because, by and large, the commission acts in an investigatory capacity, much like a prosecutor or grand jury."Billis, at 363, quoting Van Meter, supra. The commission's determination not to proceed further with a complaint is akin to that of a county prosecutor not to seek an indictment based on a citizen's complaint of a crime. Billis, citing Boieru v. StateEmp. Rel. Bd. (1988),
{¶ 13} The record before us somewhat blurs the distinction between the executive and adjudicative functions of the commission. The commission here went beyond examining the pleadings or hearing oral argument. Instead, it swore in witnesses and inquired of the witnesses. Nonetheless, the commission's proceedings are closer to a preliminary review than to a full hearing, and its no violation determination closer to a finding of no probable cause than to an adjudication of no violation.
{¶ 14} Specifically, nothing in the record indicates the commission set this matter for a full adjudicatory hearing. To the contrary, the evidence indicates the commission conducted only its preliminary review. The commission's minutes for September 18, 2003 state "PRELIMINARY REVIEWS" in bold letters. The case summaries and conclusions for the cases heard that day follow that heading, including the instant case. The letters sent to the parties setting the matter for September 18, 2003, also reflect the commission's intention to conduct a preliminary review and state in relevant part:
At the preliminary review, the Commission will review all timely filed documents submitted. After reviewing the documents, the Commission may do one of the following:
1. Find there has been no violation;
2. Find there has been a violation; or
3. Set the matter for a hearing at a later date if the Commission desires to receive further testimony.
Following the preliminary review, the Commission will notify you of the disposition.
You are welcome to attend and observe the preliminary review, however, it is within the discretion of the Commission to allow any statements or presentation of any evidence at that time.
{¶ 15} Although the commission exercised the discretion it has in preliminary review hearings to allow testimony from several individuals to aid in its determining whether probable cause existed, it did not conduct an adjudicative hearing. Because the commission did not move beyond its executive function, appellant has no right to an appeal under R.C.
Judgment affirmed.
Brown and McCormac, JJ., concur.
McCormac, J., retired, of the Tenth Appellate District, assigned to active duty under authority of Section