| 12/22/2020 |
EXHIBIT #480 DISPOSAL LETTER ISSUED TO DEFT:
December 22, 2020
Case Information:
City of Findlay v Thelma Martens
Case No. 17-CRB-00040, 41
To Whom It May Concern:
The records of the Findlay Municipal Court indicate that there are exhibits on file in this office, which the case has been concluded and the time for filing a direct appeal has elapsed. Please review the enclosed list of exhibits on file.
Please be advised that you have until Friday, January 29, 2021 to retrieve these items from the court. If the items are not recovered prior to this date they are subject to destruction or disposal at a time and place to be determined by the court.
If you have any questions please contact the undersigned at (419) 424-7144, Monday - Thursday between the hours of 7:30 AM and 5:30 PM or on Friday between 8:00 AM and 12:00 PM.
______________________________
Tamara Warrington, Judicial Assistant
|
| 3/11/2020 |
CANCELLED Jury Trial for 05/14/2020 at 08:30 AM in room 2 by JUDGE MARK C MILLER Hearing was set on 02/28/2020 |
| 3/11/2020 |
CANCELLED Hearing on Motion for 04/14/2020 at 08:30 AM in room 2 by JUDGE MARK C MILLER Hearing was set on 02/28/2020 |
| 3/11/2020 |
Finding of NOLLED entered for 1163.01A - NUISANCE |
| 3/11/2020 |
NOLLE PROSEQUI GRANTED by MARK C MILLER JUDGE on 03/11/2020
Now comes Findlay Assistant Law Director, Robert E. Feighner, Jr., for good cause shown , to wit;
Subject property personally inspected by the undersigned on March 4, 2020. Issues of concern from original charge date have been remedied.
Property condition is on par to surrounding properties.
Positive discussion was had with Defendant and his associate to ensure compliance in future of the subject property.
Goal of making the subject property in compliance with local codes has been met and dismissal of case is not unusual to other similar matters.
Judicial economy and evidentiary considerations have been taken into account.
with leave of Court, entered a Nolle Prosequi on the above affidavit. |
| 3/11/2020 |
Written NOLLE PROSEQUI filed by Prosecutor on 03/11/2020 |
| 2/28/2020 |
Assignment Notice Notice Issued |
| 2/28/2020 |
Jury Trial set for 05/14/2020 at 08:30 AM in room 2 by JUDGE MARK C MILLER Hearing was set on 02/28/2020 |
| 2/28/2020 |
Assignment Notice Notice Issued |
| 2/28/2020 |
Hearing on Motion set for 04/14/2020 at 08:30 AM in room 2 by JUDGE MARK C MILLER Hearing was set on 02/28/2020 HEARING ON PENDING MOTIONS. A HALF DAY HAS BEEN RESERVED FOR THIS HEARING. |
| 2/21/2020 |
FINAL PRETRIAL JUDGMENT ENTRY FILED BY JUDGE MILLER. |
| 1/16/2020 |
Assignment Notice Notice Issued |
| 1/16/2020 |
Pre-Trial with Judge set for 02/11/2020 at 10:30 AM in room 2 by JUDGE MARK C MILLER Hearing was set on 01/16/2020 |
| 1/10/2020 |
Written ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL filed by DEF ATTY BY FAX on 01/10/2020 |
| 1/10/2020 |
WRITTEN PLEA OF NOT GUILTY filed by DEF ATTY BY FAX on 01/10/2020 |
| 1/10/2020 |
REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL filed by DEF ATTY BY FAX on 01/10/2020 |
| 1/10/2020 |
WAIVOR OF STATUTORY TIME LIMITATION filed by DEF ATTY BY FAX on 01/10/2020 |
| 1/10/2020 |
PATTERSON HIGGINS filed notice of appearance |
| 12/13/2019 |
JE- THE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINTS IS OVERRULED. THE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO FIND DONALD RASSMUSSEN AND ROBERT FEIGHNER IN CONTEMPT IS ALSO OVERRULED. THESE MATTERS ARE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR A FINAL PRETRIAL HEARING AT WHICH TIME THE PARTIES MAY PRESENT ARGUMENTS RELATED TO ANY UNRESOLVED MOTIONS. IF APPROPRIATE CASES WILL ALSO BE SCHEDULED FOR JURY TRIAL. S/MCM, JUDGE |
| 5/20/2019 |
BRIEF AND OBJECTIONS FILED BY THIRD PARTY |
| 3/1/2019 |
Assignment Notice Notice Issued |
| 3/1/2019 |
Pre-Trial with Judge continued to 04/10/2019 at 09:00 AM in room 2 by JUDGE MARK C MILLER |
| 2/13/2019 |
Assignment Notice Notice Issued |
| 2/13/2019 |
Pre-Trial with Judge set for 02/26/2019 at 01:30 PM in room 2 by JUDGE MARK C MILLER Hearing was set on 02/13/2019 |
| 11/17/2017 |
LETTER ISSUED TO DEFENDANT REQUESTING PAYMENT OF DEPOSIT |
| 11/17/2017 |
MOTION TO ALLOW JOINT APPEAL FILED BY DEFENDANT |
| 11/16/2017 |
CRIMINAL APPEAL DOCKETING STATEMENT filed by Defendant on 11/16/2017 |
| 11/16/2017 |
STATEMENT AND PRAECIPE filed by Defendant on 11/16/2017 |
| 11/16/2017 |
NOTICE OF APPEAL filed by Defendant on 11/16/2017 |
| 10/18/2017 |
Plea of NO PLEA entered on 10/18/2017 |
| 10/18/2017 |
Finding of UNAVAILABLE entered for 1163.01A - NUISANCE |
| 10/18/2017 |
These matters came before the Court for hearing on June 15, 2017 on various motions filed by the defendants. The City of Findlay was present and represented by Assistant Director of Law, Elliott T. Werth. Defendant George W. Martens appeared unrepresented by counsel. Defendant Thelma A. Martens appeared represented by retained counsel, Patterson Higgins.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the hearing was to address three written motions filed by defendant Thelma A. Martens suggesting her appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals stays the instant criminal proceedings. Although defendant George W. Martens did not file similar written motions in any of his cases, he orally raised the same issues at the pre-trial conference conducted on April 19, 2017. In addition, the Court heard arguments regarding both defendants' motions to dismiss the charges for lack of jurisdiction because of perceived defects in the complaints. Although the cases have not been formally joined pursuant to Crim. R. 13, the Court conducted the hearings collectively in the interest of judicial economy and convenience to the parties. The Court specifically reserves the privilege to rule on any motions for joinder that may be filed. At the conclusion of the hearing the Court discussed the appropriateness of the parties visiting the properties in question in an effort to resolve the pending charges and to ensure any alleged nuisance was abated for the benefit of the neighbors and the community in general. There was also discussion whether the City of Findlay would continue to pursue the charges against defendant Thelma A. Martens if she was able to produce a quit claim deed demonstrating she had transferred her interest in the Beecher Street property to her husband, defendant George W. Martens. The Court encouraged the parties to work together in an effort to settle the matter and is willing to assist as may be appropriate.
BACKGROUND
On January 4, 2017 the City of Findlay, Ohio filed four complaints against defendant, George W. Martens. The complaints filed in case numbers 17-CRB-36 & 37 allege nuisance violations occurred on December 22, 2016 and December 21, 2016, respectively, at property owned by the defendant located at 215 Woodley Terrace, Findlay, Ohio. The complaints filed in case number 17-CRB-38 & 39 allege nuisance violations occurred on December 20, 2016 and December 21, 2016, respectively, at property owned by the defendant located at 2210 Beecher Street, Findlay, Ohio. Two complaints numbered 17-CRB-40 & 41 were filed against defendant, Thelma A. Martens alleging nuisance violations on December 20, 2016 and December 21, 2016, respectively, at the 2210 Beecher St., Findlay, Ohio property, which the defendant owned with her husband, George W. Martens. All of the complaints allege violations of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Findlay, section 1163.01A, and are charged as misdemeanors of the fourth degree. Thereafter, on January 25, 2017 the defendants appeared for arraignment and entered not guilty pleas to all charges. The cases were scheduled for a pre-trial conference to be held on February 7, 2017 for the parties to meet and discuss the case, procedural issues and potential resolutions. On the day of the pre-trial conference, defendant Thelma A. Martens filed a motion captioned "Appeal to Zoning Board stays all proceeding AND DISMISS." (sic. Defendant Thelma A. Martins cited section 1115.03 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Findlay as the basis for her request. Although she attached an affidavit to her motion indicating there was a hearing Scheduled before the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Court declined to issue an immediate stay of the proceedings without providing an opportunity for the City to respond or be heard. Thereafter, the parties conducted the pre-trial and requested a second pre-trial conference be scheduled. On February 8, 2017 defendant Thelma A. Martens filed pleadings captioned "Motion to stay all proceedings by law and/or DISMISS" (sic) and "Reply to Court Legal Basis to stay all." (sic) The second pre-trial was held on March 14, 2017 but proved fruitless. Thereafter, in an effort to provide some coordination to the multitude of motions filed by the defendants, the Court conducted a formal pre-trial hearing on April 19, 2017. During this hearing it was determined the defendants' motions regarding a stay of the proceedings would necessarily need to be resolved before any additional hearings could be held. To date, the City of Findlay has filed no response to any of the defendants' motions.
ANALYSIS
At the hearing conducted on June 15, 2017 the defendants primarily relied on section 1115.03 of the codified Ordinances of the City of Findlay and Walker v. Toledo, 143 Ohio St.3d 420, 2014-Ohio-5461. Ord. 1115.03 provides the jurisdiction of the Board of Zoning Appeals and states, in relevant part:
A. APPEALS. The Board shall hear appeals from any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the Zoning Administrator. Such appeal shall be taken within such time as shall be prescribed by the Board in its rules, and by filing with the Zoning Office a notice of appeal, specifying the grounds thereof. The Zoning Office shall transmit to the Board all facts constituting the record on which the action of appeal is taken.
B. STAY OF PROCEEDINGS. An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the Zoning Administrator from whom the appeal is taken certifies to the Board, after the notice of appeal is filed with him/her, that by reason of the facts stated in the certificate, a stay would cause imminent peril to life or property. In Such case no stay shall be had, unless a restraining order to that effect shall be issued by the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County, Ohio, after due notice given to the Zoning Administrator from whom the appeal is taken and for good cause shown.
The defendant notified the Court about the appeals on February 7, 2017. It is unclear from defendant Thelma A. Marten's motions when the actual appeals were filed.1 However, there was no claim by the City that the appeals were untimely or that the Zoning Administrator Certified a notice indicating a stay would cause imminent peril to life or property. At the hearing, the attorney for the City acknowledged a stay of the criminal proceedings was appropriate, if the filling of the criminal charges was an extension of the administrative process, The City then attempted to argue the criminal action was not an extension of the administrative process available to citizens to appeal Zoning violations to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The City argued criminal charges were not a part of the administrative process because the complaint was prepared by the City Law Director's Office and the zoning ordinance made a violation of the zoning laws a fourth degree misdemeanor which could result in the imposition of a jail sentence.
Counsel for defendant Thelma A. Martens acknowledge there were criminal penalties for a nuisance violation but generally argued the complaint was an extension of the administrative remedies employed by the City. By contrast, defendant George W. Martens asserted the City's zoning code provided the right to appeal as a natural extension of the administrative process and further, that the complaint was invalid because, according to his argument, Ord. 1199.07 authorizes only the imposition of a
1 The defendant did attach a check with an affidavit claiming the check was the filing fee paid to institute the appeal. The check is dated January 31, 2017. fine and as such, a zoning violation can only be remedied by administrative actions.2 At the hearing, neither the City nor the defendants presented any evidence related to the filing the complaints. Defendant George V. Martens submitted copies of two letters from Todd Richard, the Zoning/Floodplain Administrator providing a deadline by which the properties had to be compliant in order to avoid "legal action." The letter relating to the Beecher Street property afforded the defendants until December 20, 2016 to bring the premises into compliance. The complaints relating to the Beecher Street property allege the offenses occurred on December 20 and 21, 2016. Defendant George W. Martens argued the December 20, 2016 date of the offense is in contravention to the letter from Mr. Richard and that the complaint was one day premature. A second letter relating to the Woodley Terrace property afforded the defendants until December 21, 2016 to bring the premises into compliance. Similarly, 2 Ord. 1199.07 is titled "Fines" and reads: The owner and/or user of any building, structure or premises or part thereof, where any condition in violation of this Ordinance shall exist or shall be created, and who has assisted knowingly in the commission of such violation, shall be guilty of a separate offense and, upon conviction thereof, Shall be fined for each offense as follows: A. For each and every violation or instance of noncompliance, violators may be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree, as defined by City of Findlay Municipal Code Part Five General Offenses, Section 501.99, and each day that the violation exists will constitute a separate offense. B. A subsequent violation of this Ordinance involving the same property, the same violator, and occurring within two years of the last prior conviction for the same violation, constitutes a misdemeanor of the third degree, as defined in the City of Findlay Municipal Code Part Five General Offenses Code, Section 501.99. This fine is not in lieu of any other fee or fees to obtain a zoning permit as set forth in Chapter 1169. (Emphasis added) the complaints relating to the Woodley Terrace property allege the offense occurred on December 21 and 22, 2016. Again, defendant George W. Martens contended this is one day premature. Both letters from Mr. Richard advised the defendants had to have the property compliant by the deadline in order to avoid unspecified "legal action." It is apparent from the record the complaints were prepared by the City Law Director's office, then presented to the clerk of courts and sworn to by Mr. Richard, the Zoning Administrator, who signed the complaints. It is readily apparent the filing of the criminal complaints was the "legal action" referred to by Mr. Richard. The City has taken no other legal action to abate the alleged nuisance. This validates the defendant's argument that filing the complaints was an extension of the administrative process. Defendants also argue judicial economy requires an exhaustion of the administrative remedies prior to the filing of a criminal complaint. In support of this claim the Court is cited to Walker V. Toledo, 143 Ohio St.3d 420, 2014-Ohio-5461. In Walker the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld Toledo's automated traffic camera system used to catch red-light violators. In part, the decision focused on the home-rule authority of municipalities to establish administrative proceedings related to civil enforcement of traffic ordinances. The Court specifically stated: "Finally, we hold that Ohio municipalities have home-rule authority to establish administrative proceedings, including administrative hearings, in furtherance of these ordinances, that must be exhausted before offenders or the municipality can pursue judicial remedies." Id. at ¶29 (emphasis
added). Because the City has provided for administrative remedies in its zoning ordinance, including administrative appeals, it naturally follows that citizens should be able to pursue those administrative remedies prior to the filing of a criminal complaint. "it is a well-established principle of Ohio law that, prior to seeking court action in an administrative matter, the party must exhaust the available avenues of administrative relief through administrative appeal." Nemazee v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center, 56 Ohio
St.3d 109; 564 N.E. 477, 489. In summarizing the Doctrine of Exhaustion, the Supreme Court of Ohio in Nemazee stated: in Ohio, the exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies doctrine is a court-made rule of judicial economy. See G.S.T. W. Avon Lake (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 63, 65, 2 O.O.3d 217, 218, 357 N.E.2d 38, 40. As the United States Supreme Court has stated, "exhaustion is generally required as a matter of preventing premature interference with agency processes, so that the agency may function efficiently and so that it may have an opportunity to correct its own errors, to afford the parties and the courts the benefit of its experience and expertise, and to compile a record which is adequate for judicial review." Weinberger v. Saifi (1975), 422 U.S. 749, 765, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 2466,45 L.Ed.2d 522. The purpose of the doctrine " *** is to permit an administrative agency to apply its special expertise *** and in developing a factual record without premature judicial intervention." Southern Ohio Coal Co. v. Donovan (C.A. 6, 1985), 774 F.2d 693,702. In the instant case the defendants pursued an administrative remedy provided to them. Within its zoning ordinances, the City has specifically afforded the opportunity for a party aggrieved by a decision of the Zoning Administrator to seek review of that decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Findlay City Ordinance, Section 1115.03(A) states that the Board of Zoning Appeals shall hear appeal from any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the Zoning Administrator. The Board has the authority to "reverse, affirm or modify the order, requirement, decision or determination as in its opinion shall seem just and fair, and to that end, the Board shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken." Ord. 1115.03(D). The City's Zoning laws authorize the Board of Zoning Appeals to review actions of the Zoning Administrator and to adopt, reject or modify any actions of the Zoning Administrator. If a party prevails on an appeal to the Board, a criminal nuisance charge may be improper. By enacting Ord. 1115.03(A), the legislative authority for the City has afforded citizens the opportunity to ask the Board to review, and when necessary correct, actions of the Zoning Administrator. Further, the legislative authority has provided additional protection for citizens by enacting Ord. 1115.03(B) which grants a stay of all proceedings when a citizen files an appeal to the Board. The Court finds it inherently unfair to allow citizens to avail themselves of the protections of the zoning ordinance while at the same time subjecting them to criminal proceedings. The defendants filed an appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator. The Court finds they are therefore entitled to a stay of any administrative action, which in the particular facts of this case, includes prosecution of the criminal complaint filed by the Zoning Administrator. See, generally, Kaim Properties, LLC v. Mentor, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2012-L-055, 2013-Ohio-4291, 123 (interpreting the Mentor Rental Code to expressly provided for notice of a violation and the right to appeal such a determination prior to the initiation of Criminal prosecution, with proceedings stayed pending the appeal).
CONCLUSION
Because the filing of the criminal charges by the Zoning Administrator was an extension of the administrative process, a stay of the criminal case is required by section 1115.02(B) of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Findlay. The Court makes this determination based on the unique facts and procedural posture of this case. The defendants' motion for a stay is found well taken and is granted. The Court defers ruling on the issue of whether the complaints confer jurisdiction with the Court.
Counsel for the City is to notify the Court by filing an appropriate pleading advising when the administrative actions, and appeals, are exhausted. The Clerk of Courts is instructed to place the cases on the inactive docket. The defendants' speedy trial time is tolled pursuant to R.C. 2945.72.
it is So ORDERED, Mark C. Miller, Judge of Said Court
PROOF OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing Judgment Entry was served upon Elliott Werth, Assistant Law Director for the City of Findlay, at 314 W. Crawford St. Findlay, Ohio 45840, Attorney Patterson Higgins, counsel for defendant Thelma A. Martens at 114 W. Front St., Findlay, Ohio 45840 and defendant George W. Martens at 747 E. Sandusky St., Findlay, Ohio 45840 by Regular U.S. Mail this day of October, 2017.
|
| 4/19/2017 |
Assignment Notice issued |
| 4/19/2017 |
Hearing on Motion set for 06/15/2017 at 10:00 AM in room 2 by JUDGE MARK C MILLER HEARING ON VARIOUS MOTIONS FILED BY DEFT. |
| 4/18/2017 |
Written MOTION filed by Defendant on 04/18/2017 (NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO THE COURT RULINGS, ORDERS AND DECISIONS BY DEFENDANT) |
| 3/28/2017 |
Written MOTION filed by Defendant on 03/28/2017 (TO ALLOW FURTHER MOTIONS AND OBJECTION TO THE COURT DENYING ANY FURTHER MOTIONS) |
| 3/20/2017 |
NOTIFICATION TO THE COURT FILED BY DEFT |
| 3/17/2017 |
Assignment Notice issued |
| 3/17/2017 |
Pre-Trial with Judge set for 04/19/2017 at 08:30 AM in room 2 by JUDGE MARK C MILLER |
| 3/16/2017 |
TC Judgment Entry issued |
| 3/16/2017 |
Judgment This Day, March 16, 2017 This matter came on for hearing. It is the order, judgment and decree of this court that This matter came on for consideration this 16th day of March 2017. Court staff was advised by the defendant that the pre-trial conference held on March 14, 2017 was not productive. Accordingly, the matter is to be scheduled for a pre-trial conference with the Court at which time the Court will establish a briefing schedule, motion hearing date and trial date.
The Court finds the defendant has filed numerous motions and continues to do so in contravention to the time constraints established in Crim.R.12(D). Accordingly, the defendant is hereby ordered to file no additional motions without proper explanation justifying the delay and the express authorization by the Court for the Clerk to accept the filing. The Court will afford the defendant the opportunity to explain the need to file any additional motions at the pre-trial conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MARK C MILLER JUDGE |
| 3/15/2017 |
Written MOTION filed by Defendant on 03/15/2017 (MOTION TO LEAVE OF THE COURT TO FILE FURTHER MOTIONS) |
| 3/15/2017 |
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR DISCOVERY FILED BY PROS |
| 3/14/2017 |
Written DEMAND FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS filed by Defendant on 03/14/2017 |
| 2/8/2017 |
Written MOTION filed by Defendant on 02/08/2017 (REPLY TO COURT LEGAL BASIS TO STAY ALL) |
| 2/8/2017 |
DOCUMENTATION FILED BY DEFT AS TO THE MOTION SUBMITTED BY FAX |
| 2/8/2017 |
Written MOTION filed by DEFENDANT BY FAX on 02/08/2017 (TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS BY LAW AND-OR DISMISS) |
| 2/8/2017 |
Assignment Notice issued |
| 2/8/2017 |
Pre-Trial set for 03/14/2017 at 03:30 PM in room ROOM 203 by JUDGE MARK C MILLER FAILURE TO APPEAR WILL RESULT IN A WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST. NOTIFY YOUR ATTORNEY IMMEDIATELY ABOUT THIS HEARING. |
| 2/7/2017 |
PT Report issued |
| 2/7/2017 |
TC Judgment Entry issued |
| 2/7/2017 |
Written MOTION filed by Defendant on 02/07/2017 (APPEAL TO ZONING BOARD STAYS ALL PROCEEDINGS AND DISMISS WITH AFFIDAVIT) |
| 2/7/2017 |
Judgment This Day, February 07, 2017 This matter came on for hearing. It is the order, judgment and decree of this court that This matter comes on for consideration this 7th day of February, 2017 upon a pleading filed by the defendant, Thelma Martins, captioned "Appeal to Zoning Board stays all proceeding AND DISMISS with Affidavit." The defendant apparently is attempting to stay the criminal proceeding in this case, including a pre-trial conference scheduled for 3:45 P.M. today, by filing an appeal to the City of Findlay Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to section 1115.03 of the City of Findlay Zoning Code. The Court notes that although the defendant and her husband, George Martins, are representing themselves and have been presenting a unified defense by filing identical motions, the defendant's husband did not file a similar motion in the companion cases filed against him. Apparently this is a strategy to allow the cases against George Martins to proceed independent of the cases filed against Thelma Martins.
A board of zoning appeals is an administrative body whose function is to hear and decide appeals from administrative determinations regarding the enforcement of a zoning code. The defendant has not provided any legal authority demonstrating how her administrative appeal stays this Court's authority to proceed with a criminal hearing. In the limited time since the filing of her motion attempting to stay the criminal proceeding, which the Court notes was filed at 10:56 A.M. today, the Court has not readily found any authority supporting defendant's request for a stay. Further, although she attached an affidavit to the pleading, the defendant has failed to set forth sufficient operative facts relating to her administrative appeal for the Court to make an informed ruling.
Accordingly, the defendant's request to stay the criminal proceedings against her is DENIED. The Court reserves the right to revisit this issue at a future hearing if necessary. The pre-trial conference scheduled for later this afternoon is to proceed.
MARK C MILLER JUDGE |
| 1/31/2017 |
NOTICE FILED BY DEFT (AFFIDAVIT) |
| 1/31/2017 |
NOTICE FILED BY DEFT (AFFIDAVIT) |
| 1/31/2017 |
Written MOTION filed by DEFENDANT BY FAX on 01/31/2017 (DEFECTIVE ARRAIGNMENT AND COMPLAINT-MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT) |
| 1/31/2017 |
Written MOTION filed by DEFENDANT BY FAX on 01/31/2017 (DEFENDANTS NOT PROPERLY NAMED OR INDENTIFIED AS VIOLATOR. MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT) |
| 1/27/2017 |
Written MOTION filed by Defendant on 01/27/2017 (TO DISMISS COMPLAINT.) |
| 1/25/2017 |
Assignment Notice issued |
| 1/25/2017 |
Pre-Trial set for 02/07/2017 at 03:45 PM in room ROOM 203 by JUDGE MARK C MILLER FAILURE TO APPEAR WILL RESULT IN A WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST. NOTIFY YOUR ATTORNEY IMMEDIATELY ABOUT THIS HEARING. |
| 1/25/2017 |
This matter came on for consideration this day 01/25/2017. The defendant appeared in open court and was advised of the charge, penalty, available pleas, and legal rights. The Defendant waived his right to counsel and entered a plea of NOT GUILTY.Further, the defendant requested this matter be set for a pre-trial conference, pursuant to criminal rule 17.1.It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this matter be continued and scheduled for a pre-trial conference, and that the delay be charged against the Defendant pursuant to Revised Code 2945.72(e). |
| 1/25/2017 |
Plea of NOT GUILTY entered on 01/25/2017 |
| 1/25/2017 |
JE Continuance issued |
| 1/25/2017 |
Written MOTION filed by DEFENDANT BY FAX on 01/25/2017 (REPLY TO COURT AS MOTIONS SUBMITTED BY THELMA MARTENS) |
| 1/24/2017 |
Judgment This Day, January 24, 2017 This matter came on for hearing. It is the order, judgment and decree of this court that THE DEFENDANT HAS FILED A JURY DEMAND. THAT WILL BE ACCEPTED. IT SHOULD BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE DEMAND SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT GEORGE MARTENS IS REPRESENTING THE DEFENDANT. THE COURT WOULD REMIND THE DEFENDANT AND MR. MARTENS THAT ONLY AN ATTORNEY AT LAW CAN REPRESENT ANOTHER PARTY IN A COURT PROCEEDING. A VIOLATION WOULD BE CONSIDERED REPRESENTING A PARTY WITHOUT A LICENSE AND WILL BE REPORTED TO THE PROPER AUTHORITY. KEVIN C SMITH VISITING JUDGE |
| 1/24/2017 |
MOTION GRANTED by KEVIN C SMITH VISITING JUDGE on 01/24/2017 (SEE ENTRY) |
| 1/24/2017 |
Jury Demanded on 01/24/2017 |
| 1/24/2017 |
Written MOTION filed by DEFENDANT BY FAX on 01/24/2017 (FOR JURY TRIAL) |
| 1/24/2017 |
MOTION DENIED by KEVIN C SMITH VISITING JUDGE on 01/24/2017 (SEE ENTRY) |
| 1/24/2017 |
TC Judgment Entry issued |
| 1/24/2017 |
Written MOTION filed by Defendant on 01/24/2017 (OBJECTION TO JUDGES RUING 1/18/17 AND 1/23/17 AND MOTION TO STAY ARRAIGNMENT FOR ORAL HEARING) |
| 1/24/2017 |
Judgment This Day, January 24, 2017 This matter came on for hearing. It is the order, judgment and decree of this court that THE DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PRIOR RULINGS AND REQUEST FOR A STAY ARE OVERRULED. THE DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENTS RELATING TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION WERE PREVIOSLY ADDRESSED BY THE COURT AND NO NEW ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN RAISED TO CHANGE THE PRIOR RULINGS. LIKEWISE THE MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL HAS NO MERIT SINCE THERE IS NO PENDING APPEAL, NOR CAN THERE BE AN APPEAL AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING. THE COURT RECOMMENDS THAT THE DEFENDANT SEEK REPRESENTATION BY AN ATTORNEY IN THAT SHE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT SHE DOES NOT HAVE A FULL GRASP OF THE RULES, CASES AND STATUTES THAT SHE IS TRYING TO CITE. THIS MAY PUT HER AT A DISADVANTAGE GOING FORWARD. THE CASE SHALL PROCEED TO ARRAIGNMENT AS SCHEDULED. KEVIN C SMITH VISITING JUDGE |
| 1/22/2017 |
TC Judgment Entry issued |
| 1/22/2017 |
TC Judgment Entry issued |
| 1/22/2017 |
Judgment This Day, January 22, 2017 This matter came on for hearing. It is the order, judgment and decree of this court that The Motion for Continuance per Appeal of Ruling to Third District Appeals Court is overruled. The Defendant has not, based upon the documents filed and the facts alleged in the Motion, alleged sufficient grounds for said motion. If an appeal is filed with the Court of Appeals, the Court will comply with the appropriate Rules of Procedure.
Furthermore, the Rules of Procedure and applicable case law provides a way for the Defendant to challenge personal jurisdiction, however the Defendant has not complied with the applicable Rules. The Defendant shall appear on January 25, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. for arraignment. FAILURE TO APPEAR WILL RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT FOR THE ARREST OF THE DEFENDANT. JONATHAN P STARN Judge |
| 1/22/2017 |
Judgment This Day, January 22, 2017 This matter came on for hearing. It is the order, judgment and decree of this court that The defendant has filed several separate Motions to Dismiss the Complaint claiming various constitutional issues and issues of statutory construction. The defendant has not been arraigned or formally entered a plea as to the charge. The defendant is to appear on January 25, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. as instructed on her Summons in order to enter a plea and for the Court to advise her of his rights as well as the potential ramifications of self-representation. After arraignment the matter will be assigned to a docket and a hearing will then be scheduled on the defendant's Motions to Dismiss.
The defendant's speedy trial time is tolled pursuant to R.C. 2945.72(E) until such time as the defendant's pending motions are heard and ruled upon by the Court.
JONATHAN P STARN Judge |
| 1/20/2017 |
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF ARRN filed by Defendant on 01/20/2017 |
| 1/20/2017 |
MOTION TO DISMISS filed by Defendant on 01/20/2017 (ORAL HEARING ON ETHICS CHARGE) |
| 1/20/2017 |
MOTION TO DISMISS filed by Defendant on 01/20/2017 (MENS REA) |
| 1/20/2017 |
MOTION TO DISMISS filed by Defendant on 01/20/2017 (REQUEST ORAL HEARING) |
| 1/20/2017 |
MOTION TO DISMISS filed by Defendant on 01/20/2017 (REQUEST AN ORAL HEARING) |
| 1/20/2017 |
MOTION TO DISMISS filed by Defendant on 01/20/2017 (ADDITIONAL GROUND #4) |
| 1/20/2017 |
Written ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL filed by Defendant on 01/20/2017 |
| 1/9/2017 |
Arraignment set for 01/25/2017 at 08:30 AM |
| 1/9/2017 |
Service for SUMMONS to THELMA A MARTENS sent via FINDLAY PD (MOREY) was Personal on 01/08/2017 WITH $10.00 FEE |
| 1/5/2017 |
SUMMONS notice issued to THELMA A MARTENS via FINDLAY PD |
| 1/5/2017 |
Case Filed on 01/05/2017 |