Judge Coss submits 2011 year-end report for Common Pleas Court, General and Domestic Relations Divisions
By
-
By The Hon. Judge Rocky Coss
Highland County Common Pleas Court
This is the fourth annual report prepared for the purpose of informing the public of the activities of the Court during the past year and comparing the case filings for the Court for the past several years.
OHIO SUPREME COURT SESSION
Obviously, the Ohio Supreme Court’s session at our historic courthouse on October 19,
2011 was the highlight of the year for the Court and the staff. Oral arguments were heard by the Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court in four cases, including the smoking ban case which garnered statewide attention.
The Supreme Court conducts two sessions each year in counties in Ohio to educate high school students and the public about the Supreme Court. Over 200 students from Highland County and approximately 200 other persons had the opportunity to observe the four oral arguments.
This was indeed an historic event in Highland County as the Ohio Supreme Court had not sat in our county previously. This Court and the Probate-Juvenile paid for the painting and repair of the gutters and soffits as well as interior public areas of the Courthouse from special project fees assessed on cases filed in the courts. The Highland County Commissioners and the Historical Society provided the funding to repaint and restore the columns on the front of the courthouse. All of this work was completed prior to the Supreme Court session.
The Court received great support and cooperation from the County Commissioners, Clerk of Courts, County Sheriff, Hillsboro Police Department, the Highland County Bar Association and the public and private high schools in the county. This made the event very successful.
CASE MANAGEMENT
Attached to this report is a copy of the 2011annual totals of the monthly reports required to be filed with the Supreme Court by the 15th of each month showing the case activity for the previous month. As of December 31, 2011, there were 283 total cases pending in the General Division, compared to 246 pending as of December 31, 2010 representing an increase of 37 cases. The increase is primarily attributable to foreclosures and civil cases. There were 29 more foreclosure and 17 more civil cases pending at the end of 2011 compared to 2010. There were only 35 criminal cases pending at the end of 2011 compared to 48 at the end of 2010, a decrease of 13 cases. In the Domestic Relations Division, there were 97 cases pending at the end of 2011 compared to 89 at the end of 2010.
Part of the increase in foreclosure cases pending at the end of the year may is due in part to the Court’s practice of giving owners who desire to keep their home or to sell it rather than going through foreclosure, as much time as possible within the case time guidelines to negotiate a loan modification or other agreement with their lenders. There are several types of programs available to homeowners facing foreclosure, all of which take some time and require a great deal of information that the lenders must review to determine whether the homeowners qualify for one or more programs.
The Supreme Court has adopted time guidelines within which cases should be completed. For example, the time guideline for criminal cases is six months from the date of arraignment. The guideline for foreclosures is twelve months from date of filing and for most other civil cases it is twenty-four months. There have been no past pending criminal cases in the General Division of this Court since April of 2009 and no past pending civil cases since March of 2010. There have been no past pending cases in the Domestic Relations Division since March of 2010.
The Court does have the monthly reports submitted to the Supreme Court dating back to 1972 and has reviewed those reports. Prior to 2009, there were no monthly reports filed in which there no past pending cases were reported at the end of that month in either division of this Court. The docket in both the General and Domestic Relations is the most current it has been since at least 1972.
YEARLY CASELOAD COMPARISONS
Attached to this report is a copy of the summary of annual case filings for the General
and Domestic Relations Divisions for the years 2003-2011. These reflect both new and reopened cases filed in the categories which are reported monthly to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The total number of new and reopened cases filed in the General Division in 2011 was 726 compared to 864 cases in 2010. The total of new and reopened cases in Domestic Relations was 422 compared to 502 cases in 2010. The total number of cases in both divisions was 1148 compared to 1366 in 2010. This is a decrease of 15% and is the lowest total of case filings since 2003.
CRIMINAL CASES
There were 180 new criminal cases filed in 2011 compared to 178 in 2010. However, there were only 13 criminal cases reopened in 2011 compared to 54 in 2010. The total of new and reopened criminal cases for 2011 was 193 compared to 232 in 2010, which is a decrease of 17% and is the lowest number of criminal cases filed since 2003.
FORECLOSURE FILINGS
There were 262 new foreclosure cases and 10 reopened cases filed in 2011 for a total of 272. This compares to 307 new cases and 12 reopened cases for a total of 319 in 2010. This represents a decrease of 15%. The number of foreclosure cases increased annually from 2003 until 2010. This is the second consecutive year of decreases in foreclosures in our county. In 2009, there were 388 new and reopened foreclosure cases filed which is the largest number filed since 2003.
OTHER CIVIL CASES
There were 261 other types of new and reopened civil cases filed in 2011 compared to
313 filed in 2010. This is a decrease of 17%. Until 2010, the number of other civil cases filed had been increasing annually since 2003 when only 160 were filed.
JURY TRIALS
Judge Coss conducted jury trials in 9 criminal cases and 1 civil case in 2011. In 2010 Judge Coss conducted 10 jury trials in criminal cases and 1 civil jury trial was conducted by a visiting judge. Since Judge Coss became Judge in August of 2008, the Court has been averaging approximately one jury trial per month.
COURT TECHNOLOGY
VIDEO ARRAIGNMENT SYSTEM
The Court’s video arraignment system became operational on March 20, 2009. Since that date, the Court has conducted 619 video hearings for prisoners in the Highland County Jail and 125 for prisoners in state correctional facilities, treatment facilities or other county jails for a total of 744. The total number of video hearings in 2011 for prisoners in the Highland County Jail was 252 and 38 for prisoners in other facilities, a total of 290. Since the implementation of the system, the Court has conducted an average of 22 video hearings per month.
These video hearings have saved the Sheriff’s Department thousands of dollars in costs of transporting prisoners to court from the local jail or from the other locations, and supervising them in custody during their time in the courthouse. It also allows the Court to conduct the hearings more quickly since it is much easier to get the prisoner to the video room as opposed to arranging for transport to the courthouse.
WEBSITE
The Court’s website became operational in February and has been a great success. The website has the calendars for the general and domestic relations divisions available as well as court indexes and dockets. Visitors to site can view and download the local court rules and appendices. They can also view the events scheduled in a case and the past events in the docket.
There is also a juror information page for potential jurors to learn about jury service and an announcement box for announcements about jury trials and other events taking place in the court.
The usage report for the website for 2011 indicates that there were 34,529 visits from February through December excluding October which due to technical issues with the county server did not get reported. This represents an average of 3,453 visits per month. Both the Court staff and the Clerk’s office report a significant decrease in the number of telephone calls and people coming in person to those offices to inquire about cases. This has allowed the staff in those offices to spend their time doing other things that would have been delayed while they responded to those telephone and in person inquiries.
FISCAL MANAGEMENT
The Court’s general fund budget for 2011 was $199, 026.52 which is less than the
Court’s general fund budget for 1998. The actual expenditures for 2011 were $192,955.57 which was $6,070.95 or 3% less than the amount appropriated by the County Commissioners. This included the one-time additional payment to court staff authorized by the County Commissioners in December.
The Court has continued to utilize cost containment measures to reduce expenses. These include in addition to the video arraignment system, using email notices to attorneys, parties and jurors when available instead of mail notices, reducing the use of paid foreign judges by Judge Coss’ exchanging service as a visiting judge with judges of adjoining counties at no cost to either county, monitoring usage of supplies and various other measures.
SIGNIFICANT EVENTS IN 2011
There were two significant events in 2011 that required major changes in the
Court’s operations and procedures. The first was the result of the cuts to the state budget. As part of the reductions in the budget of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, that agency ceased providing pre-sentence investigation reports through its probation officers to county common pleas courts in 54 counties, including Highland County effective July 1st. As a result, the Highland County Probation Department which had previously been handling only misdemeanor cases in the Hillsboro Municipal Court and Madison Township County Court and felony diversion and intervention in lieu of conviction cases in Common Pleas Court had to assume this function, which has averaged about 120 cases per year.
That department was able to do this with very little difficulty at an increased cost of approximately $27,000.00 which was provided by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction for one year. While the state has indicated that funding for this service should be ongoing in the future, if the state decides to eliminate this subsidy, this will cause an increase in the county commissioners’ responsibility to fund that agency. It should be noted that the state estimated that its cost to provide this service was approximately $64,000.00.
The other major event was the enactment of House Bill 86 which became effective September 29th. This bill enacted sweeping changes into Ohio’s sentencing laws and procedures including the elimination of the Court’s authority to sentence most first time offenders convicted of fourth and fifth degree felonies to a state correctional facility regardless of their past juvenile and misdemeanor histories. As a result of House Bill 86, the Court has had to make significant changes to its sentencing procedures and practices.
The bill also requires courts for the first time to report monthly to the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections the number of persons on probation at the end of the month, the number added, and the number terminated. The procedure for that has not yet been established, but depending on the procedure established, changes to the court’s computer case management system could be necessary which will be another financial cost to the county.
In January of 2011, Judge Rocky A. Coss was appointed by Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Conner to serve a three year term on the Ohio Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Case Management which is charged with reviewing the Ohio Supreme Court’s current rules on case management and recommending changes to the Court. He was also appointed by the Chairman of the Advisory Committee to serve as Chairman of the Common Pleas Court General Division Statistical Reporting Subcommittee. This gives Judge Coss the opportunity to learn more about the way courts in other counties in Ohio manage their court’s cases as well as to offer a small county’s voice to the committee’s work.
The committee meets in Columbus four days each year. The subcommittee meets once or twice per year on the same days, and also conducts meetings by teleconferencing. There have been no financial costs to the county as committee members’ travel expenses are paid by the Ohio Supreme Court.
Anyone having any questions about this report or the court’s activities and operations is welcome to contact the Court.
[[In-content Ad]]
Highland County Common Pleas Court
This is the fourth annual report prepared for the purpose of informing the public of the activities of the Court during the past year and comparing the case filings for the Court for the past several years.
OHIO SUPREME COURT SESSION
Obviously, the Ohio Supreme Court’s session at our historic courthouse on October 19,
2011 was the highlight of the year for the Court and the staff. Oral arguments were heard by the Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court in four cases, including the smoking ban case which garnered statewide attention.
The Supreme Court conducts two sessions each year in counties in Ohio to educate high school students and the public about the Supreme Court. Over 200 students from Highland County and approximately 200 other persons had the opportunity to observe the four oral arguments.
This was indeed an historic event in Highland County as the Ohio Supreme Court had not sat in our county previously. This Court and the Probate-Juvenile paid for the painting and repair of the gutters and soffits as well as interior public areas of the Courthouse from special project fees assessed on cases filed in the courts. The Highland County Commissioners and the Historical Society provided the funding to repaint and restore the columns on the front of the courthouse. All of this work was completed prior to the Supreme Court session.
The Court received great support and cooperation from the County Commissioners, Clerk of Courts, County Sheriff, Hillsboro Police Department, the Highland County Bar Association and the public and private high schools in the county. This made the event very successful.
CASE MANAGEMENT
Attached to this report is a copy of the 2011annual totals of the monthly reports required to be filed with the Supreme Court by the 15th of each month showing the case activity for the previous month. As of December 31, 2011, there were 283 total cases pending in the General Division, compared to 246 pending as of December 31, 2010 representing an increase of 37 cases. The increase is primarily attributable to foreclosures and civil cases. There were 29 more foreclosure and 17 more civil cases pending at the end of 2011 compared to 2010. There were only 35 criminal cases pending at the end of 2011 compared to 48 at the end of 2010, a decrease of 13 cases. In the Domestic Relations Division, there were 97 cases pending at the end of 2011 compared to 89 at the end of 2010.
Part of the increase in foreclosure cases pending at the end of the year may is due in part to the Court’s practice of giving owners who desire to keep their home or to sell it rather than going through foreclosure, as much time as possible within the case time guidelines to negotiate a loan modification or other agreement with their lenders. There are several types of programs available to homeowners facing foreclosure, all of which take some time and require a great deal of information that the lenders must review to determine whether the homeowners qualify for one or more programs.
The Supreme Court has adopted time guidelines within which cases should be completed. For example, the time guideline for criminal cases is six months from the date of arraignment. The guideline for foreclosures is twelve months from date of filing and for most other civil cases it is twenty-four months. There have been no past pending criminal cases in the General Division of this Court since April of 2009 and no past pending civil cases since March of 2010. There have been no past pending cases in the Domestic Relations Division since March of 2010.
The Court does have the monthly reports submitted to the Supreme Court dating back to 1972 and has reviewed those reports. Prior to 2009, there were no monthly reports filed in which there no past pending cases were reported at the end of that month in either division of this Court. The docket in both the General and Domestic Relations is the most current it has been since at least 1972.
YEARLY CASELOAD COMPARISONS
Attached to this report is a copy of the summary of annual case filings for the General
and Domestic Relations Divisions for the years 2003-2011. These reflect both new and reopened cases filed in the categories which are reported monthly to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The total number of new and reopened cases filed in the General Division in 2011 was 726 compared to 864 cases in 2010. The total of new and reopened cases in Domestic Relations was 422 compared to 502 cases in 2010. The total number of cases in both divisions was 1148 compared to 1366 in 2010. This is a decrease of 15% and is the lowest total of case filings since 2003.
CRIMINAL CASES
There were 180 new criminal cases filed in 2011 compared to 178 in 2010. However, there were only 13 criminal cases reopened in 2011 compared to 54 in 2010. The total of new and reopened criminal cases for 2011 was 193 compared to 232 in 2010, which is a decrease of 17% and is the lowest number of criminal cases filed since 2003.
FORECLOSURE FILINGS
There were 262 new foreclosure cases and 10 reopened cases filed in 2011 for a total of 272. This compares to 307 new cases and 12 reopened cases for a total of 319 in 2010. This represents a decrease of 15%. The number of foreclosure cases increased annually from 2003 until 2010. This is the second consecutive year of decreases in foreclosures in our county. In 2009, there were 388 new and reopened foreclosure cases filed which is the largest number filed since 2003.
OTHER CIVIL CASES
There were 261 other types of new and reopened civil cases filed in 2011 compared to
313 filed in 2010. This is a decrease of 17%. Until 2010, the number of other civil cases filed had been increasing annually since 2003 when only 160 were filed.
JURY TRIALS
Judge Coss conducted jury trials in 9 criminal cases and 1 civil case in 2011. In 2010 Judge Coss conducted 10 jury trials in criminal cases and 1 civil jury trial was conducted by a visiting judge. Since Judge Coss became Judge in August of 2008, the Court has been averaging approximately one jury trial per month.
COURT TECHNOLOGY
VIDEO ARRAIGNMENT SYSTEM
The Court’s video arraignment system became operational on March 20, 2009. Since that date, the Court has conducted 619 video hearings for prisoners in the Highland County Jail and 125 for prisoners in state correctional facilities, treatment facilities or other county jails for a total of 744. The total number of video hearings in 2011 for prisoners in the Highland County Jail was 252 and 38 for prisoners in other facilities, a total of 290. Since the implementation of the system, the Court has conducted an average of 22 video hearings per month.
These video hearings have saved the Sheriff’s Department thousands of dollars in costs of transporting prisoners to court from the local jail or from the other locations, and supervising them in custody during their time in the courthouse. It also allows the Court to conduct the hearings more quickly since it is much easier to get the prisoner to the video room as opposed to arranging for transport to the courthouse.
WEBSITE
The Court’s website became operational in February and has been a great success. The website has the calendars for the general and domestic relations divisions available as well as court indexes and dockets. Visitors to site can view and download the local court rules and appendices. They can also view the events scheduled in a case and the past events in the docket.
There is also a juror information page for potential jurors to learn about jury service and an announcement box for announcements about jury trials and other events taking place in the court.
The usage report for the website for 2011 indicates that there were 34,529 visits from February through December excluding October which due to technical issues with the county server did not get reported. This represents an average of 3,453 visits per month. Both the Court staff and the Clerk’s office report a significant decrease in the number of telephone calls and people coming in person to those offices to inquire about cases. This has allowed the staff in those offices to spend their time doing other things that would have been delayed while they responded to those telephone and in person inquiries.
FISCAL MANAGEMENT
The Court’s general fund budget for 2011 was $199, 026.52 which is less than the
Court’s general fund budget for 1998. The actual expenditures for 2011 were $192,955.57 which was $6,070.95 or 3% less than the amount appropriated by the County Commissioners. This included the one-time additional payment to court staff authorized by the County Commissioners in December.
The Court has continued to utilize cost containment measures to reduce expenses. These include in addition to the video arraignment system, using email notices to attorneys, parties and jurors when available instead of mail notices, reducing the use of paid foreign judges by Judge Coss’ exchanging service as a visiting judge with judges of adjoining counties at no cost to either county, monitoring usage of supplies and various other measures.
SIGNIFICANT EVENTS IN 2011
There were two significant events in 2011 that required major changes in the
Court’s operations and procedures. The first was the result of the cuts to the state budget. As part of the reductions in the budget of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, that agency ceased providing pre-sentence investigation reports through its probation officers to county common pleas courts in 54 counties, including Highland County effective July 1st. As a result, the Highland County Probation Department which had previously been handling only misdemeanor cases in the Hillsboro Municipal Court and Madison Township County Court and felony diversion and intervention in lieu of conviction cases in Common Pleas Court had to assume this function, which has averaged about 120 cases per year.
That department was able to do this with very little difficulty at an increased cost of approximately $27,000.00 which was provided by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction for one year. While the state has indicated that funding for this service should be ongoing in the future, if the state decides to eliminate this subsidy, this will cause an increase in the county commissioners’ responsibility to fund that agency. It should be noted that the state estimated that its cost to provide this service was approximately $64,000.00.
The other major event was the enactment of House Bill 86 which became effective September 29th. This bill enacted sweeping changes into Ohio’s sentencing laws and procedures including the elimination of the Court’s authority to sentence most first time offenders convicted of fourth and fifth degree felonies to a state correctional facility regardless of their past juvenile and misdemeanor histories. As a result of House Bill 86, the Court has had to make significant changes to its sentencing procedures and practices.
The bill also requires courts for the first time to report monthly to the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections the number of persons on probation at the end of the month, the number added, and the number terminated. The procedure for that has not yet been established, but depending on the procedure established, changes to the court’s computer case management system could be necessary which will be another financial cost to the county.
In January of 2011, Judge Rocky A. Coss was appointed by Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Conner to serve a three year term on the Ohio Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Case Management which is charged with reviewing the Ohio Supreme Court’s current rules on case management and recommending changes to the Court. He was also appointed by the Chairman of the Advisory Committee to serve as Chairman of the Common Pleas Court General Division Statistical Reporting Subcommittee. This gives Judge Coss the opportunity to learn more about the way courts in other counties in Ohio manage their court’s cases as well as to offer a small county’s voice to the committee’s work.
The committee meets in Columbus four days each year. The subcommittee meets once or twice per year on the same days, and also conducts meetings by teleconferencing. There have been no financial costs to the county as committee members’ travel expenses are paid by the Ohio Supreme Court.
Anyone having any questions about this report or the court’s activities and operations is welcome to contact the Court.
– Judge Rocky A. Coss
Highland County Common Pleas Court
Highland County Common Pleas Court
[[In-content Ad]]