On Thursday, October 2, 2025, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed a decision by the Third District Court of Appeals, dismissing a complaint filed by Derrick L. Martre against Judge Jeffrey L. Reed of the Allen County Court of Common Pleas. The case, styled State ex rel. Martre v. Reed, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-4542, centered on Martre’s attempt to obtain a writ of prohibition against Judge Reed.

The legal action originated from a 2017 case where Martre was indicted on multiple felony charges, including gross sexual imposition and illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material. These charges stemmed from images found on Martre’s cellphone, which was seized by police under a search warrant following a domestic dispute. Martre ultimately pleaded no contest and received a 12-year prison sentence, also being classified as a Tier II sex offender. His convictions and sentence were previously affirmed by the Third District Court of Appeals in 2019.

In 2021, Martre filed a postsentence motion seeking the return of his cellphone and its memory card, arguing the search warrant used to seize the property was invalid. Judge Reed granted this motion, ordering the return of items seized from Martre that were not contraband, illegal for him to possess, or being held as evidence.

Subsequently, Martre appealed Judge Reed’s decision, arguing that the order to return his property effectively acted as a postsentence suppression motion under Ohio Revised Code (R.C.) 2981.03, the state’s criminal-forfeiture statute. He contended that this should have led to the vacation of his convictions. The Third District Court of Appeals rejected this argument, and the Ohio Supreme Court declined to hear Martre’s appeal in 2022.

In October 2024, Martre filed a complaint seeking a “corrective writ of prohibition” against Judge Reed. He argued that R.C. 2981.03 requires any motion for return of property filed after an indictment to be treated as a motion to suppress evidence. Martre asserted that Judge Reed’s failure to comply with this statute rendered the judgment granting the property motion void due to a lack of jurisdiction.

Judge Reed moved to dismiss Martre’s complaint, arguing that Martre had failed to state a claim for prohibition relief. The Third District Court of Appeals granted Judge Reed’s motion to dismiss, finding that Martre had not demonstrated that Judge Reed patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to rule on the property motion. The appellate court also noted that Martre had adequate remedies available through the ordinary course of law to challenge the ruling.

The Ohio Supreme Court’s recent decision affirmed the Third District’s ruling, stating that Martre had failed to demonstrate that Judge Reed lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court clarified that an alleged failure to comply with procedural requirements does not inherently implicate a trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court further noted that Martre had adequate remedies through appeal or postconviction motion.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.