State ex rel. Neguse v. Crawford, 18AP-526
Decision Date | 03 December 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 18AP-526,18AP-526 |
Citation | 2019 Ohio 4950 |
Parties | The State ex rel. Mekria Neguse, Relator, v. Judge Dale A. Crawford, Respondent. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
DECISION
Mekria Neguse, pro se.
Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Benjamin D. Humphrey, for respondent.
IN PROHIBITION ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
{¶ 1} "Mekria Neguse," whose name seems to appear on various other court documents as "Mekuria Neguse" and "Mekuira Neguse," filed with this court a "Complaint for Writ of Prohibition" relating to a trial court Nunc Pro Tunc Entry from February 3, 1995 that had denied Mr. Neguse's petition for postconviction relief. That entry, as attached by Mr. Neguse to his complaint here, recited that "[a]fter hearing testimony of witnesses and arguments from the plaintiff and defendant, the Court finds the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit."
{¶ 2} Pursuant to Local Rule 13(M)(1) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals and Civil Rule 53, the matter was referred to a magistrate of this court. In the fullness of time, respondent Judge Stephen McIntosh of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court, as the successor to named respondent Judge Dale Crawford, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as not compliant with the requirements of R.C. 2969.25 and as barred by res judicata. On January 29, 2019, the magistrate issued a decision recommending that "this court should grant respondent's motion and dismiss relator's complaint." App'x at ¶ 25. Having recited Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the magistrate observed that Mr. Neguse Id. at ¶ 24.
{¶ 3} With Mr. Neguse not having timely filed any objections to the magistrate's decision, the matter was submitted to this panel on October 8, 2019. Under Civil Rule 53(D)(4)(c), "[i]f no timely objections are filed, the court may adopt a magistrate's decision, unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the magistrate's decision."
{¶ 4} We have reviewed the decision in the context of the record of this case and find no such error of law or other evident defect. Nonetheless, a brief recap may be appropriate.
{¶ 5} This matter does not appear to relate directly to the murder for which Mr. Neguse was convicted in 1990. See App'x at ¶ 12; see also State v. Neguse, 71 Ohio App.3d 596 (10th Dist.1991). Rather, it relates to his 1989 conviction by plea for drug abuse and assault. See App'x at ¶ 19; State ex rel. Neguse v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas ("SER Neguse"), 10th Dist. No. 17AP-755, 2019-Ohio-564, ¶ 3.
{¶ 6} Earlier this year, this court dismissed Mr. Neguse's request for a writ of mandamus seeking "written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Post-Conviction Transcript of Proceeding of Evidentiary Hearing relative to the dismissal of his Petition for Relief after Judgment filed in Respondent's Court rendered on June 29, 1994." SER Neguse, 2019-Ohio-564, at ¶ 5. That decision quoted from another Neguse matter, reciting that as untimely. Id. at ¶ 11, quoting State v. Neguse, 10th Dist. No. 17AP-449, 2018-Ohio-1163, ¶ 10, 12.
{¶ 7} We observed that "for nearly 30 years" and in a variety of fashions, Mr. Neguse has challenged his 1989 drug abuse and assault convictions on the ground that the trial court there lacked jurisdiction because he had been a juvenile; that "relator had the opportunity to file an appeal of this court's decision" denying a motion on those grounds as contrary to the evidence, and that he had not done so; and that "this question has been raised and answered by both the trial court and this court and relator is not entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to provide him with additional findings of fact and conclusions of law." SER Neguse, 2019-Ohio-564, at ¶ 23 ( ). Mr. Neguse did not appeal from this earlier 2019 decision, either.
{¶ 8} In this latest action, Mr. Neguse again seeks a writ, now characterized as a "Writ of Prohibition," to compel the trial court "to make findings of fact and conclusions of law * * *." Complaint at Prayer for Relief. . A writ of prohibition is designed to stop an unauthorized exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power that is about to occur. See, e.g., State ex rel. Polo v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 74 Ohio St.3d 143, 144-45 (1995); State ex rel. Roush v. Montgomery, 10th Dist. No. 17AP-791, 2018-Ohio-2098, ¶ 4, citing State ex rel. Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70, 73 (1998). It is not designed to provide another avenue for pursuing a writ of mandamus that has already been turned away. Mr. Neguse has not made out the elements required for a writ of prohibition. The magistrate's decision is correct in noting here, too, that Mr. Neguse's challenge "has been raised and answered by both the trial court and this court," and that he "is not entitled to a writ of prohibition challenging the trial court's determination." App'x at ¶ 24.
{¶ 9} With no timely objection to the magistrate's decision having been filed, and because no error of law or other defect is evident on its face, we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law of that decision. Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted, and relator Neguse's request for a writ of prohibition is dismissed.
Motion to dismiss granted; action dismissed.
APPENDIX
MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
Rendered on January 29, 2019
Mekria Neguse, pro se.
Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Benjamin D. Humphrey, for respondent.
IN PROHIBITION ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
{¶ 10} Relator, Mekria Neguse, has filed this original action requesting this court issue a writ of prohibition ordering respondent the Honorable Dale A. Crawford, a judge of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, to explain the reasons for the February 3, 1995 nunc pro tunc entry issued without findings of fact and conclusions of law, and ordering respondent to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Findings of Fact:
{¶ 11} 1. Relator is an inmate currently incarcerated at Warren Correctional Institution.
{¶ 12} 2. On July 11, 1990, a jury found relator guilty of murder with the specification of having a weapon while under disability.
{¶ 13} 3. This court affirmed relator's conviction in State v. Neguse, 71 Ohio App.3d 596 (10th Dist.1991).
{¶ 14} 4. Thereafter, relator filed numerous motions, postconviction petitions, and requests for writs in this court.
{¶ 15} 5. On June 29, 2018, relator filed this complaint regarding the trial court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief filed June 29, 1994.
{¶ 16} 6. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss and relator has filed a brief.
Conclusions of Law:
{¶ 17} For the reasons that follow, it is this magistrate's decision that this court grant respondent's motion to dismiss.
{¶ 18} Relator filed a similar mandamus action in this court last year. In addressing relator's arguments concerning this same motion and denial by the trial court, the magistrate set out a brief history of the case.
{¶ 19} In the 28 years following his conviction, appellant has filed and was denied several postconviction motions pertaining to his drug abuse and assault convictions. Pertinent to this appeal, in 1993, appellant filed a motion to vacate or set aside judgment asserting his conviction and sentences are void because he was a juvenile (16 years old) at the time of the offenses depriving the common pleas court of jurisdiction, no jurisdictional hearing was conducted, reliance on the bone test was erroneous as he was never examined or a patient of Children's Hospital, and his counsel provided ineffective assistance. Appellee filed a memorandum contra asserting appellant failed to appeal, and the issues raised by appellant were barred under the doctrine...
To continue reading
Request your trial