Patituce v. Hein

Summary

The Sixth District Court of Appeals granted Joseph Patituce a writ of prohibition against Judge Jonathan P. Hein. The court held that the trial court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal case while the direct appeal involving the same matter was pending.

Holdings

1. A relator is entitled to a writ of prohibition when the respondent is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, the exercise is unauthorized by law, and denial of the writ would cause injury for which no adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law; no adequate-remedy showing is required when the respondent patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction.
2. Once an appeal has been filed, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case except to take actions in aid of the appeal; holding a hearing on pending motions addressing the subject of the appeal is not an action in aid of the appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a writ of prohibition was appropriate to prevent the common pleas court judge from proceeding with the underlying criminal case while the direct appeal was pending.
2. Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to hold a hearing on motions addressing the subject of the pending appeal.

Disposition

writ_granted