State ex rel. Key v. Spicer

Decision Date23 May 2001
Docket NumberNo. 00-2184.,00-2184.
PartiesTHE STATE EX REL. KEY, APPELLANT, v. SPICER, JUDGE, APPELLEE.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Phillip R. Key, pro se.

Sherri Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip D. Bogdanoff, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

In 1986, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas convicted appellant, Phillip R. Key, of complicity to commit aggravated robbery and sentenced him to prison. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed. State v. Key (Oct. 1, 1986), Summit App. No. 12568, unreported, 1986 WL 11318. The presiding judge of the common pleas court had assigned appellee, Judge W.F. Spicer, a judge of the probate division, to preside over Key's criminal case.

In October 2000, Key filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Summit County for a writ of prohibition to vacate his 1986 conviction and sentence. Key claimed that Judge Spicer had been improperly assigned to the case. In October 2000, the court of appeals dismissed the complaint.

This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.

Key asserts that the court of appeals erred by dismissing his prohibition action. In the absence of a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court having general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine its own jurisdiction, and a party challenging that jurisdiction has an adequate remedy at law by appeal. Brooks v. Gaul (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 202, 203, 729 N.E.2d 752, 753. No patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction is evident here. R.C. 2931.01 does not disqualify a probate court judge from presiding over criminal cases. See State v. Bays (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 15, 28, 716 N.E.2d 1126, 1140-1141; State v. Cotton (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 8, 10 O.O.3d 4, 381 N.E.2d 190, paragraph four of the syllabus.

In addition, a claim of improper assignment of a judge can generally be adequately raised by way of appeal. See, e.g., State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 30, 6 OBR 50, 52, 451 N.E.2d 225, 227-228

(mandamus and prohibition no substitute for appeal to contest alleged improper assignment of judge).

Further, Key's claim that his 1986 criminal trial occurred in probate court is refuted by the sentencing entry attached to his complaint, which establishes that he was tried, convicted, and sentenced in the general division of the common pleas court.

Finally, to the extent that Key's claim could be construed to request...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • State ex rel. Harris v. Turner
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • May 13, 2020
    ...¶ 6. "[A] claim of improper assignment of a judge can generally be adequately raised by way of appeal." State ex rel. Key v. Spicer , 91 Ohio St.3d 469, 470, 746 N.E.2d 1119 (2001). There is an exception to the adequate-remedy requirement: " ‘when a court's judgment is void because it lacke......
  • Rolfe v. Galvin, 2006 Ohio 2457 (OH 5/17/2006)
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • May 17, 2006
    ...through mandamus or prohibition. State ex rel. Keith v. McMonagle, 106 Ohio St.3d 61, 2005-Ohio-3669, 831 N.E.2d 433; State ex rel. Key v. Spicer, 91 Ohio St.3d 469, 2001-Ohio-98, 746 N.E.2d 1119; and State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 451 N.E.2d 225, cert. denied (1......
  • State v. Keith
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • June 18, 2015
    ...State ex rel. Keith v. McMonagle, 106 Ohio St.3d 61, 2005-Ohio-3669, 831 N.E.2d 433, ¶ 7; see also State ex rel. Key v. Spicer (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 469, 2001 Ohio 98, 746 N.E.2d 1119 ("a claim of improper assignment of a judge can generally be adequately raised by way of appeal"); State ex......
  • State ex rel. Ragozine v. Shaker, 2002-0016.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • August 21, 2002
    ...is not entitled to a writ of prohibition because of the availability of an adequate remedy at law by appeal. State ex rel. Key v. Spicer (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 469, 746 N.E.2d 1119. {¶ 8} Based on these standards and for the following reasons, the court of appeals properly dismissed the boar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT