Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. RICARDO GRAY RELATOR
JUDGE NANCY R. McDONNELL RESPONDENT
Prohibition Motion No. 512398 Order No. 514446
RELATOR Ricardo Gray, pro se.
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga
County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County
Prosecutor The Justice Center.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
C. GALLAGHER, Judge.
Ricardo Gray has filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition.
Gray seeks an order from this court that requires Judge Nancy
R. McDonnell, in State v. Gray, Cuyahoga C.P. No.
CR-98-369837, to vacate his conviction and sentence for the
offenses of murder, felonious assault, and firearm
specifications. Judge McDonnell has filed a motion to dismiss
that is granted for the following reasons.
A writ of prohibition is designed to prevent a tribunal from
proceeding in a matter in which it is not authorized to hear
and determine, or in which it seeks to usurp or exercise
jurisdiction with which it has not been invested by law.
State ex rel Doe v. Tracy, 51 Ohio App.3d 198, 555
N.E.2d 674 (12th Dist.1988). It is well established that the
purpose of a writ of prohibition is to prevent inferior
courts and tribunals from usurping jurisdiction beyond that
with which they have been granted by law. State ex rel.
White v. Junkin, 80 Ohio St.3d 335, 1997-Ohio-340, 686
N.E.2d 267. Where a court possesses general subject-matter
jurisdiction over a pending action, a writ of prohibition
will not issue to prevent an error of law. State ex rel.
Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 Ohio St.3d 114, 2012-Ohio-54, 961
N.E.2d 181; State ex rel. Winnefeld v. Court of Common
Pleas of Butler Cty., 159 Ohio St. 225, 112 N.E.2d 27
If a court patently and unambiguously lacks general
subject-matter jurisdiction, a writ of prohibition will issue
to correct the results of prior unauthorized actions.
State ex rel. Cordray v. Marshall 123 Ohio St.3d
229, 2009-Ohio-4986, 915 N.E.2d 633. However, if a court does
not patently and unambiguously lack general
subject-matter jurisdiction, prohibition will not issue and
the issue of jurisdiction must be addressed through an
appeal. State ex rel. Bradford v. Trumbull Cty.
Court, 64 Ohio St.3d 502, 1992-Ohio-132, 597 N.E.2d 116;
State ex rel. Pearson v. Moore, 48 Ohio St.3d 37,
548 N.E.2d 945 (1990).
Herein, Gray argues that Judge McDonnell lacked jurisdiction
in the underlying criminal case, CR-98-369837, based upon the
claims that: (1) Arthur Jackson and Anthony Mixon, both
witnesses for the state at trial, lied and committed perjury;
and (2) the state failed to provide information to counsel
concerning another suspect named Bennie Kern.
Initially, we find that Judge McDonnell possessed the
necessary jurisdiction to preside over Gray's criminal
case pursuant to R.C. 2931.03. State ex rel. Pruitt v.
Donnelly, 129 Ohio St.3d 498, 2011-Ohio-4203, 945 N.E.2d
117; State ex rel. Plant v. Cosgrove, 119 Ohio St.3d
264, 2008-Ohio-3838, 893 N.E.2d 485; State ex rel.
Cunningham v. Lindeman, 126 Ohio St.3d 481,
2010-Ohio-4388, 935 N.E.2d 393.
In addition, we find that the claims of perjured testimony
and failure to provide the information about another suspect
were considered in prior appeals. See State v. Gray,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103087 (June 23, 2015) (motion for
delayed appeal denied); State v. Gray, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 96956 (June 28, 2011) (dismissed as untimely
filed); State v. Gray, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92646,
2012-Ohio-3565; State v. Gray, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 84677, 2004-Ohio-7030; and State v. Gray, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 82841, 2003-Ohio-6643. Because this court
has already addressed the claims of perjured testimony and
failure to provide information about another suspect, the
doctrine of res judicata bars any further consideration, and
Gray's complaint for a writ of prohibition must fail.
State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93, 671 N.E.2d 233
(1996); State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226
N.E.2d 104 (1967).
Accordingly, we grant Judge McDonnell's motion to
dismiss. Costs to Gray. The court directs the clerk of courts
to serve all parties with notice of this judgment and the
date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).