YOUNGSTOWN — Attorney Martin Desmond has appealed the November ruling by visiting Judge Mark Wiest in Desmond’s request for the judge to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Desmond’s allegations of wrongdoing by top Mahoning County officials.

Desmond, a former assistant county prosecutor, alleged wrongdoing by the three current county commissioners and Mahoning County Prosecutor Gina DeGenova over the firing and rehiring of county maintenance worker Ricky Morrison in late 2022.

Desmond was Morrison’s attorney in a federal lawsuit involving Morrison’s termination, which the county’s insurance company settled out of court, paying Morrison $175,000.

The petition claimed that DeGenova’s estranged husband, Steve Zawrotuk, had overheard a conversation between DeGenova and Commissioner Carol Rimedio-Righetti in 2022 when he and DeGenova were still together.

Zawrotuk claimed that he overheard Rimedio-Righetti admit that Morrison’s firing was “politically motivated” because Morrison supported Rimedio-Righetti’s opponent in the November 2022 election, Geno DiFabio.

DeGenova said the Desmond-Zawrotuk filing is “gutter politics at its worst” and said, “I want to categorically deny the false allegations made by my estranged husband against me.”

During a Nov. 20 hearing in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, Wiest dismissed Desmond’s petition asking for the special prosecutor.

After hearing remarks by Desmond and an attorney for DeGenova, Wiest noted that he was the visiting judge in the criminal case 25 years ago in Mahoning County of a former county commissioner convicted of “theft in office and some other corruption-type crimes, and there was evidence of corruption and abuse of power and using county employees for his own personal business and his own county commissioner campaign.”

But Wiest said, “The only thing I read about here (in Desmond’s petition) is you’re saying these people lied a lot, and they’re lying because they want to cover up this firing of this gentleman who, as it has been pointed out, was reinstated with full pay and benefits.”

Wiest said, “We’re dealing with people you say are trying to cover up a firing. And I just don’t see it, and I’m going to … dismiss this case.” He added that Desmond could appeal.

Desmond filed a notice of appeal of the matter Dec. 24 with the 7th District Court of Appeals, raising four issues that are “probable issues for review.”

He said one issue was that the judge “improperly made factual findings without holding an evidentiary hearing.”

Another was that the judge “improperly made final findings of fact in violation of Ohio Supreme Court precedent.” Demond referenced a 1931 Ohio Supreme Court ruling related to matters in Mahoning County from that time period.

Others were that Wiest improperly dismissed the petition to appoint a special prosecutor “on (his) motion” and that he “failed to permit (Desmond) to offer evidence / argument in support” of the petition.

In addition to orally dismissing Desmond’s petition at the Nov. 20 hearing, Wiest issued a judgment entry Nov. 25, stating that Desmond’s petition “alleges that Mahoning County Prosecutor (DeGenova), members of her staff and Mahoning County Commissioners have engaged in conduct which could support an indictment for the following crimes: intimidation, tampering with records, tampering with evidence, telecommunication fraud, bribery, interfering with civil rights, failure to report a crime, dereliction of duty (and) engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity.”

The entry notes that Morrison was reinstated to his job shortly after losing it with back pay and no loss of benefits.

The entry continues, “Petitioner claims that the firing was political because Morrison supported the opponent of one of the commissioners. Petitioner further claims that DeGenova and the commissioner engaged in a cover-up of the wrongful termination. The petition claims that DeGenova and the commissioner told numerous lies as part of the cover-up.”

The entry adds that Desmond’s “allegations do not support the appointment of a special prosecutor. Assuming the allegations to be true, they do not amount to probable cause that any crimes were committed.

“Petitioner would have this court authorize expenditure of taxpayer money to investigate a so-called cover-up of an improper filing of a county employee who was reinstated shortly thereafter with no loss of pay or benefits,” the entry states.

It adds, “Assuming the court has the inherent authority to grant petitioner’s request, the court finds there is no basis to do so, and it would be an abuse by the court of such authority. On its own motion, the court dismisses the petition.”

On Monday, the Mahoning County commissioners approved the appointment of Mazanec Raskin & Ryder, as well as attorney Todd Raskin, in relation to the $25,000 in the Desmond appeal.