Judge Coss submits year-end report for 2009
By
-
2009 YEAR-END REPORT
HIGHLAND COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT
GENERAL AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISIONS
This is the second annual report prepared for the purpose of informing
the reader of the activities of the Court during the past year and comparing
the case filings for the Court for the past five years.
I. CASE MANAGEMENT
Attached to this report is a summary comparing the monthly Ohio Supreme
Court Reports filed for the General Division for the years 2005-2009. The
Supreme Court requires the Court to file a monthly report by the 15th of
each month showing the case activity for the prior month. 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 and for most
other civil cases is twenty-four months.
As of December 31, 2008, there were 415 total cases pending in the
General Division, 93 criminal and 322 civil. As of December 31, 2009, there
were 344 total cases pending, 65 criminal cases and 279 civil cases. This
constitutes a 17% reduction in the number of pending cases at the end of the
year.
At the beginning of the year, there were 8 criminal cases past pending
past pending, meaning beyond the time guidelines set by the Ohio Supreme
Court. At the end of April of 2009, there were no criminal cases past
pending which is the first time that has happened in many years. There have
been no past pending criminal cases since that time and there were
none past pending at the end of 2009.
There were 21 civil cases past pending at the beginning of the year. At
the close of the year, there was only 1 past pending civil case on Judge
Coss’ docket. Visiting Judges currently have 12 cases assigned to them, 9
of which are past pending. However, several of these have been completed
and are awaiting final judgment entries. Most if not all should be
completed within six months.
Attached to this report are the monthly Supreme Court Reports for the
Domestic Relations Division for December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2009. At
the end of 2008, there were 213 cases pending, 27 of which were past the
Ohio Supreme Court guidelines. At the end of 2009, there were 162 cases and
none past pending. This represents a 24% reduction in pending cases in that
division. The Domestic Relations Division has had no past pending cases
since October of 2009 which is also the most current that docket has been
for many years.
The statistical comparisons show that the docket for the General and
Domestic Relations is the most current that it has been at any time in the
the past five years. A review of past available Ohio Supreme Court Annual
Reports demonstrates that it is the most current in many years. Most of the
recent reports can be viewed on the Ohio Supreme Court’s website under
“publications”.
II. 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 2005-2009. The total number
of new and reopened cases filed in 2009 was 1,435. This represented an
increase of 73 cases over the 2008 total of 1,362.
A. CRIMINAL CASES
There were 212 new criminal cases filed in 2009, a decrease of 74 cases
from the 2008 criminal case total of 286. This is decrease of 26% and
continues a trend from 2006 when the number of criminal cases filed was 348.
The 2007 total was 310.
B. FORECLOSURE FILINGS
Attached to this report is a listing of the number of foreclosures filed
since 2003.
There were 382 new foreclosure cases filed in 2009 compared to 351 in 2008,
an increase of 8.8%. The number of foreclosure cases has been increasing
steadily since 2003 when 254 were filed. The total increase over the seven
year period was 128 cases which represents a 50% increase.
C. OTHER CIVIL CASES
There were 298 other types of civil cases filed in 2009 (680 total cases
minus the 382
foreclosures). This represents a 5.6% increase from the 2008 total of 282
and an increase of 35% from the 2007 total of 221.
III. COURT TECHNOLOGY
A. RECORDING SYSTEM
The Court purchased a new four track digital recording system for the
courtroom,
replacing an outdated cassette system. The new system has dual hard drives
which record simultaneously so that if one fails the other is still records.
The hard drives are backed up weekly on an external hard-drive. CD’s of the
recorded hearings are available immediately since they can be made on the
new system.
B. VIDEO ARRAIGNMENT SYSTEM
The Court also purchased a new video arraignment system to conduct video
hearings for
prisoners in the Highland County Justice Center. The system became
operational on March 20, 2009. Since that date, the Court has conducted 160
video hearings for prisoners in that facility and 38 for prisoners in state
correctional facilities, treatment facilities or other county jails. The
total of 198 hearings represents an average of 20 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 represents a significant increase in security
since anytime that prisoners are transported from a secure facility to a
public building, the risk of a security breach is much greater.
C. ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
The Court established a policy of giving notice of hearings and trials to
attorneys by mail.
All attorneys are required to provide e-mail addresses to the Court. This
has resulted in significant reduction in the cost of postage, envelopes,
copying, paper and labor to send notices by regular U.S. mail. It also
enables the Court to send notices out much more quickly.
The Court is also encouraging jurors to provide e-mail addresses so that
they can be notified of dates to report for jury duty in that manner also.
The Court now accepts fax filings on most types of legal pleadings.
D. WEBSITE
The Court is working with a vendor to establish a website for the Court in
the very near future. The Court’s daily calendar will be on the website
along with information for jurors, attorneys and the public.
IV. FISCAL MANAGEMENT
Due to the county’s fiscal situation, the Court requested that the County
Commissioners reduce the original 2009 general fund budget appropriation for
the Court from $207,996.92 to $203,689.91. The county auditor’s year-end
budget report for the Court attached shows that the Court expended only
$193,660.33 which was 5% less than the reduced appropriation amount and 7%
less than the original budget appropriation.
The four fulltime court staff each took three furlough days and the two
part-time staff took one furlough day. The Judge took a 20% reduction in
the county’s share of his salary for the last three months of the year. The
amount expended from the Court’s general fund budget is the lowest amount
since 1998. The 2010 general fund budget is also less than the 1998
appropriation.
All of the Court’s expenditures for the audio recording and video
arraignment system as well as computer upgrades and other court improvement
projects were paid for by the special projects account which are fees
assessed in all cases filed with the court
Judge Rocky A. Coss
Highland County Common Pleas Court[[In-content Ad]]
HIGHLAND COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT
GENERAL AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISIONS
This is the second annual report prepared for the purpose of informing
the reader of the activities of the Court during the past year and comparing
the case filings for the Court for the past five years.
I. CASE MANAGEMENT
Attached to this report is a summary comparing the monthly Ohio Supreme
Court Reports filed for the General Division for the years 2005-2009. The
Supreme Court requires the Court to file a monthly report by the 15th of
each month showing the case activity for the prior month. 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 and for most
other civil cases is twenty-four months.
As of December 31, 2008, there were 415 total cases pending in the
General Division, 93 criminal and 322 civil. As of December 31, 2009, there
were 344 total cases pending, 65 criminal cases and 279 civil cases. This
constitutes a 17% reduction in the number of pending cases at the end of the
year.
At the beginning of the year, there were 8 criminal cases past pending
past pending, meaning beyond the time guidelines set by the Ohio Supreme
Court. At the end of April of 2009, there were no criminal cases past
pending which is the first time that has happened in many years. There have
been no past pending criminal cases since that time and there were
none past pending at the end of 2009.
There were 21 civil cases past pending at the beginning of the year. At
the close of the year, there was only 1 past pending civil case on Judge
Coss’ docket. Visiting Judges currently have 12 cases assigned to them, 9
of which are past pending. However, several of these have been completed
and are awaiting final judgment entries. Most if not all should be
completed within six months.
Attached to this report are the monthly Supreme Court Reports for the
Domestic Relations Division for December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2009. At
the end of 2008, there were 213 cases pending, 27 of which were past the
Ohio Supreme Court guidelines. At the end of 2009, there were 162 cases and
none past pending. This represents a 24% reduction in pending cases in that
division. The Domestic Relations Division has had no past pending cases
since October of 2009 which is also the most current that docket has been
for many years.
The statistical comparisons show that the docket for the General and
Domestic Relations is the most current that it has been at any time in the
the past five years. A review of past available Ohio Supreme Court Annual
Reports demonstrates that it is the most current in many years. Most of the
recent reports can be viewed on the Ohio Supreme Court’s website under
“publications”.
II. 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 2005-2009. The total number
of new and reopened cases filed in 2009 was 1,435. This represented an
increase of 73 cases over the 2008 total of 1,362.
A. CRIMINAL CASES
There were 212 new criminal cases filed in 2009, a decrease of 74 cases
from the 2008 criminal case total of 286. This is decrease of 26% and
continues a trend from 2006 when the number of criminal cases filed was 348.
The 2007 total was 310.
B. FORECLOSURE FILINGS
Attached to this report is a listing of the number of foreclosures filed
since 2003.
There were 382 new foreclosure cases filed in 2009 compared to 351 in 2008,
an increase of 8.8%. The number of foreclosure cases has been increasing
steadily since 2003 when 254 were filed. The total increase over the seven
year period was 128 cases which represents a 50% increase.
C. OTHER CIVIL CASES
There were 298 other types of civil cases filed in 2009 (680 total cases
minus the 382
foreclosures). This represents a 5.6% increase from the 2008 total of 282
and an increase of 35% from the 2007 total of 221.
III. COURT TECHNOLOGY
A. RECORDING SYSTEM
The Court purchased a new four track digital recording system for the
courtroom,
replacing an outdated cassette system. The new system has dual hard drives
which record simultaneously so that if one fails the other is still records.
The hard drives are backed up weekly on an external hard-drive. CD’s of the
recorded hearings are available immediately since they can be made on the
new system.
B. VIDEO ARRAIGNMENT SYSTEM
The Court also purchased a new video arraignment system to conduct video
hearings for
prisoners in the Highland County Justice Center. The system became
operational on March 20, 2009. Since that date, the Court has conducted 160
video hearings for prisoners in that facility and 38 for prisoners in state
correctional facilities, treatment facilities or other county jails. The
total of 198 hearings represents an average of 20 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 represents a significant increase in security
since anytime that prisoners are transported from a secure facility to a
public building, the risk of a security breach is much greater.
C. ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
The Court established a policy of giving notice of hearings and trials to
attorneys by mail.
All attorneys are required to provide e-mail addresses to the Court. This
has resulted in significant reduction in the cost of postage, envelopes,
copying, paper and labor to send notices by regular U.S. mail. It also
enables the Court to send notices out much more quickly.
The Court is also encouraging jurors to provide e-mail addresses so that
they can be notified of dates to report for jury duty in that manner also.
The Court now accepts fax filings on most types of legal pleadings.
D. WEBSITE
The Court is working with a vendor to establish a website for the Court in
the very near future. The Court’s daily calendar will be on the website
along with information for jurors, attorneys and the public.
IV. FISCAL MANAGEMENT
Due to the county’s fiscal situation, the Court requested that the County
Commissioners reduce the original 2009 general fund budget appropriation for
the Court from $207,996.92 to $203,689.91. The county auditor’s year-end
budget report for the Court attached shows that the Court expended only
$193,660.33 which was 5% less than the reduced appropriation amount and 7%
less than the original budget appropriation.
The four fulltime court staff each took three furlough days and the two
part-time staff took one furlough day. The Judge took a 20% reduction in
the county’s share of his salary for the last three months of the year. The
amount expended from the Court’s general fund budget is the lowest amount
since 1998. The 2010 general fund budget is also less than the 1998
appropriation.
All of the Court’s expenditures for the audio recording and video
arraignment system as well as computer upgrades and other court improvement
projects were paid for by the special projects account which are fees
assessed in all cases filed with the court
Judge Rocky A. Coss
Highland County Common Pleas Court[[In-content Ad]]