Youngstown Daily Legal News

Court rejects man's claim that state owes him money

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: July 30, 2014

A trial court did not err by denying a man’s request that the clerk of courts issue him a $450 check, according to a recent ruling by the 10th District Court of Appeals.

Mustafa Muhammad appealed to the three-judge appellate panel after the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denied his writ of replevin without a hearing.

Muhammad claimed the state owed him money from his original appearance bond in his underlying criminal case.

He filed a document titled “Writ of Replevin Motion for Order of Possession” in the common pleas court seeking repayment of the amount owed.

Specifically, Muhammad sought a court order commanding Franklin County Clerk of Courts, Maryellen O’Shaughnessy, to issue him a check for $450.

An affidavit accompanying that motion stated that Muhammad had instituted eight prior actions pertaining to the same cause in various courts, including the Supreme Court of Ohio, the 10th District and the common pleas court.

The state responded to Muhammad’s motion and informed the trial court that a $450 check was already issued to Muhammad by the former clerk of courts in 2005.

The 10th District judges stated that “based on our review of the record, that appears to be true.”

“The record also suggests the 2005 check was cashed,” Judge Amy O’Grady wrote on behalf of the three-judge appellate panel.

Nevertheless, Muhammad claimed he did not receive or cash the check.

He insisted that he was incarcerated at the time the check was issued and mailed to his home address.

The record shows Muhammad mailed the motion to the clerk of courts with no instructions and no certificate of service.

The motion was filed and the trial court denied it in January 2014.

On appeal to the 10th District, Muhammad first argued that the trial court erred by failing to assign the matter a separate case number.

The appellate judges noted that Muhammad did not initiate a separate civil action or file the required affidavit with his motion.

Instead, he filed the motion under the case number used in his criminal case.

“He created the issue which he complains about, and did not provide any authority to support it was the clerk’s responsibility to construe his motion as one commencing a separate civil action,” Judge O’Grady stated.

Finding no plain error, the judges overruled Muhammad’s first assignment of error.

He next complained that the trial court improperly denied his motion without holding a hearing on the matter.

However, the judges ruled that because he failed to comply with the proper filing procedure the trial court was not required to hold a hearing on the matter.

Finally, Muhammad claimed the trial court erred when it failed to return the bond money.

The district judges maintained that the final argument was contingent upon his first two claims.

“Those arguments have failed. Thus, there is no support for appellant’s contention that the trial court erred by not ordering the clerk of courts to issue him a check for $450,” Judge O’Grady concluded.

Presiding Judge Lisa Sadler and Judge Gary Tyack concurred and affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

The case is cited State v. Muhammad, 2014-Ohio-2797.

[Back]