Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Lake
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. SCOTT A. GRANT, Relator,
JUDGE RICHARD L. COLLINS, JR., Respondent.
Action for Writ of Prohibition.
A. Grant, pro se, (Relator).
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor, Teri R. Daniel,
Assistant Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building,
PER CURIAM OPINION
Respondent, Judge Richard L. Collins, Jr., moves for
dismissal of relator, Scott A. Grant's, petition for a
writ of prohibition. Respondent argues the petition fails to
state a viable claim because relator has an adequate remedy
at law. For the following reasons, respondent's motion to
dismiss is granted.
In September 1985, relator was indicted on charges of rape,
aggravated murder, and kidnapping. After a jury trial, he was
convicted of involuntary manslaughter and kidnapping. The
rape charge was dismissed at the conclusion of the
state's case. This court affirmed. See State v.
Grant, 11th Dist. Lake No. 11-252, 1987 WL 26720 (Dec.
In August 2016, respondent issued a judgment setting a
hearing to determine whether relator should be designated a
sexual predator pursuant to Megan's Law (H.B. 180).
Before the scheduled hearing, relator brought this action
seeking a writ prohibiting respondent from proceeding. In
asserting that respondent lacks jurisdiction, relator alleges
that Megan's Law is no longer enforceable because it was
repealed by the Ohio General Assembly.
Seeking dismissal, respondent argues that prohibition cannot
lie because relator has an adequate legal remedy by way of
A writ of prohibition will issue when the relator can prove:
(1) a judicial officer is about to use judicial or
quasi-judicial power; (2) the proposed use of power is
unauthorized under the law; and (3) unless the writ is
issued, the relator will suffer harm for which there is no
other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.
State ex rel. Smith v. Hall, 145 Ohio St.3d 473,
2016-Ohio-1052, 50 N.E.3d 524, ¶7. The writ cannot be
employed to prevent an erroneous judgment or to correct
mistakes in a lower court proceeding. State ex rel.
Linetsky v. Friedman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100117,
2013-Ohio-3257, ¶4. Rather, the purpose of the writ is
to "'stop an inferior court or judicial officer from
engaging in any action which exceeds the general scope of its
jurisdiction.'" Entech LTD. v. Geauga Cty. Court
of Common Pleas, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2016-G-0092,
2017-Ohio-503, ¶9, quoting State ex rel. Feathers v.
Gansheimer, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2006-A-0038,
As to the adequate remedy element, an "appeal is
considered an adequate remedy that will preclude a writ of
prohibition." Smith, at ¶8. However, the
writ will lie even if an adequate remedy exists, provided the
lack of jurisdiction is patent and unambiguous.
Entech, at ¶8.
Nevertheless, "absent such a patent and unambiguous lack
of jurisdiction, a court having general jurisdiction of the
subject matter of an action has authority to determine its
own jurisdiction. A party challenging the court's
jurisdiction has an adequate remedy at law via appeal from
the court's holding that it has jurisdiction."
Linetsky, at ¶4, citing State ex rel.
Rootstown Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Portage Cty.
Court of Common Pleas, 78 Ohio St.3d 489, 678 N.E.2d
Under Megan's Law (H.B. 180), R.C. 2950.09(B)(1) states
that the judge imposing sentence or his successor must hold a
hearing to determine whether the defendant is a sexual
predator. See State v. Turner, 2nd Dist. Montgomery
No. 25115, 2013-Ohio-806, ¶17. Similarly, R.C.
2950.09(C)(1) provides that if a defendant was sentenced to a
prison term on a sexually oriented offense prior to the
effective date of the statute, and if the department of
rehabilitation and correction then decides to recommend prior
to the defendant's release that he be adjudicated a
sexual predator, the recommendation shall be be sent to the
court imposing sentence. See State v. McIntyre, 130
Ohio App.3d 463, 465, 720 N.E.2d 222 (9th Dist.1998);
State v. Baird, 12th Dist. Clermont No.
CA2001-03-043, 2002 WL 649394, *2 (Apr. 22, 2002).
In his petition, relator states he is the defendant and that
respondent is the judge in the underlying case. Hence, under
the version of R.C. 2950.09 set forth in Megan's Law,
relator's allegations are insufficient to establish a
patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction. Thus, should