Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
opinion at 2017-Ohio-1455]
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.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.
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.
Factual and Procedural History
This appeal stems from a joint indictment returned against
Carabello and Pryor. In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-16-603753,
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.
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.
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."
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
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).
Law and Analysis