On February 27th, 2026, the Sixth District Court of Appeals issued a peremptory writ of prohibition preventing a Fulton County trial judge from proceeding with a criminal case while a related direct appeal is pending, reinforcing a fundamental jurisdictional principle. Once an appeal is filed, trial courts lose authority to act on matters involved in that appeal.
The decision in Patituce v. Hein arose from an emergency writ complaint filed by defense attorney Joseph Patituce against Fulton County Common Pleas Judge Jonathan P. Hein. Patituce argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to conduct further proceedings in the criminal prosecution of his client because the issues at stake were already before the appellate court. The Sixth District agreed, concluding that the record indicated the trial court appeared poised to conduct proceedings that would intrude on the appellate court’s jurisdiction.
Background of the Dispute
The underlying criminal matter involves State v. Barnum, a criminal case in the Fulton County Common Pleas Court. On November 20, 2025, Patituce filed a complaint for an emergency writ of prohibition in the Sixth District Court of Appeals. The complaint alleged that Judge Hein intended to hold a hearing addressing issues that were already the subject of Barnum’s pending direct appeal. Patituce sought an order prohibiting the trial judge from continuing proceedings in the case while the appeal remained pending.
The appellate court responded on January 5, 2026, issuing an alternative writ directing Judge Hein to take one of two actions within fourteen days. Either file written notice stating that he would refrain from proceeding with the criminal case while the appeal was pending, or file an answer or motion to dismiss addressing the prohibition complaint. Judge Hein did not respond to the alternative writ. With no response from the respondent Judge, the appellate court proceeded to evaluate the request for a writ based on the record before it.
Legal Standard for a Writ of Prohibition
A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy designed to restrain inferior courts from exceeding their jurisdiction. The court relied on various prior rulings for the proposition that prohibition prevents courts from exercising jurisdiction they do not possess. To obtain a writ of prohibition in Ohio, a relator generally must establish three elements:
- The respondent is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power
- The exercise of that power is unauthorized by law
- Denial of the writ would result in injury for which no adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law
However, Ohio law provides an important exception. When a court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction, the relator is not always required to demonstrate the absence of an adequate legal remedy. It just depends on the nature of the jurisdictional dispute.
Trial Court Jurisdiction During an Appeal
The core issue in the case involved the effect of a pending appeal on a trial court’s authority. Ohio law provides that once a notice of appeal is filed, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the matters involved in that appeal except to take actions in aid of the appeal. The court explains that trial courts retain jurisdiction only over issues that are not inconsistent with the appellate court’s authority to affirm, modify, or reverse the judgment under review.
In other words, while a trial court may address matters unrelated to the appeal, it cannot take actions that could interfere with the appellate court’s jurisdiction. The Sixth District also noted that trial courts may rule on issues unrelated to the subject of an appeal but may not proceed on matters that could affect the appellate court’s ability to review the case.
After reviewing the record, the Sixth District determined that the circumstances justified issuing the writ. The court explained that the evidence before it indicated that Judge Hein appeared to be attempting to hold a hearing on an issue involved in Barnum’s pending appeal. Such a hearing would not constitute an action “in aid of the appeal.” Instead, it could affect the appellate court’s ability to review the underlying order. Because of that, the appellate panel concluded that the trial court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to proceed. That jurisdictional defect made a writ of prohibition appropriate.
The Sixth District issued a peremptory writ of prohibition preventing Judge Hein from proceeding with the Barnum prosecution until the direct appeal is resolved. The court further ordered the Sheriff of Darke County to immediately serve a copy of the writ on Judge Hein by personal service and directed the clerk to serve the remaining parties pursuant to Civil Rule 5(B). Costs were taxed to Judge Hein under Appellate Rule 24.
Key Takeaways
The ruling highlights a recurring but critical jurisdictional principle in Ohio appellate practice. Filing an appeal significantly limits trial court authority. Once a notice of appeal is filed, trial courts lose jurisdiction over the matters involved in that appeal. The court may act only on issues that either aid the appeal or do not interfere with the appellate court’s jurisdiction. For criminal defense attorneys, this rule creates a procedural safeguard when trial courts attempt to revisit issues that are already under appellate review.
This case illustrates a scenario where prohibition may be appropriate. When a trial court’s lack of jurisdiction is patent and unambiguous, the relator need not show that other remedies are inadequate. That makes prohibition a powerful tool for immediately halting unauthorized proceedings. Even experienced trial courts occasionally confront complex jurisdictional boundaries once an appeal is filed. Defense counsel should closely monitor trial court activity during pending appeals to ensure proceedings do not encroach on the appellate court’s authority.
Dennis P. Sawan
