The Court of Appeals of Ohio has reversed a controversial decision by the Cleveland Municipal Court involving a pretrial diversion program. On January 15, 2026, the City of Cleveland filed an appeal against Shardh M. Hall, challenging the lower court’s decision to place Hall in a selective intervention program (SIP) despite objections from the prosecution.
The case arose when Shardh M. Hall was charged with assault, a first-degree misdemeanor under Cleveland Codified Ordinance 621.03, following an incident on December 31, 2024. According to the complaint, Hall allegedly attacked her partner’s boss with a crowbar and caused visible injuries. After her arraignment in January 2025, Hall’s defense requested her placement in a diversion program designed for non-violent offenders. However, this request faced strong opposition from the City of Cleveland due to the violent nature of the charges and existing laws that disqualify violent offenses from such programs.
Despite these objections and a recommendation against Hall’s participation by the probation department, the trial court proceeded to place her in the diversion program. The City of Cleveland immediately sought an appeal and requested a stay on proceedings until appellate review could be completed.
The crux of Cleveland’s appeal centered around allegations that the trial court violated the separation-of-powers doctrine by overruling prosecutorial discretion—a key component outlined in R.C. 2935.36 which mandates cooperation between courts and prosecutors for diversion programs. The appellate court agreed with this position, citing previous rulings that underscore prosecutorial consent as essential for such referrals.
In reversing and remanding the case back to municipal court, Judge Eileen T. Gallagher emphasized that without prosecutorial consent, judicial authority does not extend to diverting cases away from prosecution through pretrial programs—particularly when it involves alleged violent offenses like those attributed to Hall.
As part of its judgment reversal, the appellate court also addressed procedural aspects related to final appealable orders under Ohio law. It concluded that since placing Hall in SIP affected substantial rights tied to prosecution and potentially foreclosed future legal actions without immediate review, it constituted a final order eligible for appeal.
The attorneys representing each side were Mark Griffin along with Aqueelah A. Jordan and Angel Sanchez for appellant City of Cleveland; Cullen Sweeney and Noelle A. Powell-Sacks represented appellee Shardh M. Hall as public defenders.
Source: 2026Ohio123_City_of_Cleveland_v_Hall_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf