State ex rel. McCuller v. Common Pleas Court Juvenile Div.
2013 Ohio 4929
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- McCuller seeks writ of procedendo/mandamus to compel Juvenile Court to issue final orders in five bindover cases.
- Juvenile Court transferred cases to Common Pleas; bindover orders exist but craved action not journalized or signed per McCuller.
- McCuller was charged in 1979; later pled guilty and was sentenced in 1980 across several cases.
- Respondent moved for summary judgment; argues no journalization/signing defects require mandamus relief.
- Court treats juvenile proceedings as civil; Crim.R. 32/Civ.R. 58 not applicable to bindover judgments.
- Court rejects mandamus relief, citing adequate remedy at law, res judicata/issue preclusion, and public policy against vain acts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus/procedendo lies to compel journalization of bindover orders | McCuller asserts signings/journalization violated Crim.R. 32 and Civ.R. 58 | Juvenile Court argues no final appealable order; acts are civil, not subject to those rules | No mandamus; acts deemed vain and not final judgments |
| Whether relator has an adequate remedy at law precluding mandamus | Relator seeks direct order to proceed to judgment; argues delay harms due process | Relator can appeal after conviction; remedies exist in ordinary course | Adequate remedy at law exists; mandamus denied |
| Whether issue/claim preclusion or res judicata bars relief | Relator challenges prior bindover as void ab initio | Prior determinations preclude relitigation; issue preclusion applies | Res judicata/issue preclusion precludes relief |
| Whether the relief would be a vain act or waste judicial resources | If relief granted, could challenge bindover judgments | Writ would not meaningfully advance relator's goals and wastes resources | Writ denied as vain act |
| Whether relator may be declared a vexatious litigator | Not directly raised here | Relator has a pattern of frivolous filings | Duly warned; potential vexatious-litigant designation possible |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Charvat v. Frye, 114 Ohio St.3d 76 (2007-Ohio-2882) (mandamus standards and discretion)
- State ex rel. CNG Fin. Corp. v. Nadel, 111 Ohio St.3d 149 (2006-Ohio-5344) (preclusion principles; wiring of mandamus relief)
- Bozsik v. Hudson, 110 Ohio St.3d 245 (2006-Ohio-4356) (mandamus preclusion; adequate remedy at law)
- State v. Reddick, 72 Ohio St.3d 88 (1995-Ohio-249) (limits of mandamus; not an open invitation for remedies)
- In re Becker, 39 Ohio St.2d 84 (1974-Ohio-158) (nature of bindover judgments; finality and reviewability)
- State ex rel. McCuller v. Calabrese, 2011-Ohio-3992 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96764) (earlier mandamus proceeds; bindover proper; preclusion)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995-Ohio-331) (claim preclusion and related concepts in Ohio)
- Onesti v. Debartolo Realty Corp, 113 Ohio St.3d 59 (2007-Ohio-1102) (res judicata principles in Ohio)