Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Carabello

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

June 22, 2017

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
v.
HERIBERTO MORALES CARABELLO, ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

         [Vacated opinion at 2017-Ohio-1455]

         Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-16-603753-A and CR-16-603753-B

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: Frank Romeo Zeleznikar Jonathan Block Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES For Heriberto Morales Carabello Gerald M. Smith Gerald M. Smith Co., L.P.A. Richard D. McClure For Michael Pryor Angelo F. Lonardo Joseph J. Lonardo Yelsky & Lonardo Co., L.P.A.

          BEFORE: Celebrezze, J., Blackmon, P.J., and Jones, J.

         ON RECONSIDERATION [1]

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.

         {¶1} In this consolidated appeal, plaintiff-appellant, the state of Ohio, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of the criminal case against defendants-appellees, Heriberto Morales Carabello ("Carabello") and Michael Pryor ("Pryor"), without prejudice. Specifically, the state argues that the trial court erred by dismissing the criminal case without holding a hearing and failed to comply with the requirements set forth in Crim.R. 48(B). After a thorough review of the record and law, we affirm.

         I. Factual and Procedural History

         {¶2} This appeal stems from a joint indictment returned against Carabello and Pryor. In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-16-603753, [2] the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury returned a three-count indictment on March 17, 2016, charging Carabello and Pryor with felonious assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), and kidnapping, in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(2); Count 3 charged Carabello with having weapons while under disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2). The charges pertain to an incident that occurred on February 15, 2016, at a clothing store in Cleveland's Warehouse District where Carabello and Pryor were employed.

         {¶3} Carabello was arraigned on March 28, 2016; he pled not guilty to the indictment. Pryor was arraigned on March 31, 2016; he pled not guilty to the indictment. Thereafter, the trial court conducted pretrial proceedings during which the matter was set for trial on September 22, 2016.

         {¶4} On September 22, 2016, after calling the matter for trial, the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice. The trial court's journal entries provide, "case called for trial. Outstanding discovery. Case is dismissed without prejudice. Over state's strenuous objection."

         {¶5} On September 28, 2016, the state filed the instant appeals, which we consolidated for review, challenging the trial court's dismissal. The state assigns one error for review:

I. The trial court erred when it dismissed these cases without a hearing, and without adhering to the requirements set forth in Crim.R. 48(B).

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.