State ex rel. McCuller v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
34 N.E.3d 905
Ohio2015Background
- Charles McCuller was a juvenile in 1979 charged in five separate juvenile-court matters; each matter was the subject of a juvenile bindover hearing transferring the case to common pleas court.
- In three transferred matters McCuller was indicted, pleaded guilty in 1980, and was sentenced; he completed those sentences and was released in 2002 (he was later reincarcerated in 2005 on other offenses).
- In one transferred matter the charges were nolled; in the fifth matter there is no record of any indictment or prosecution after bindover.
- In 2013 McCuller filed a petition for a writ of procedendo and/or mandamus arguing the juvenile bindover entries were invalid because they were not signed by the judge and not journalized by the clerk, and asking the juvenile court to "proceed to judgment" on the bindover motions.
- The court of appeals granted summary judgment to the juvenile court and denied the writ; the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed, concluding McCuller had adequate remedies or could obtain no meaningful relief in each case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of procedendo/mandamus to compel juvenile court to "proceed to judgment" on bindovers | McCuller: bindovers invalid because not signed/journalized; court must be ordered to proceed | Respondent: McCuller has adequate legal remedies (direct appeal) or no meaningful relief; res judicata bars repeat claims | Denied — writs precluded because adequate remedies existed for convictions and res judicata/no meaningful relief for other matters |
| Whether failure to sign/journalize bindovers deprived McCuller of remedy on appeal | McCuller: procedural defects rendered bindovers interlocutory/unenforceable and should be remedied now | Respondent: any defect could have been raised on direct appeal from convictions or in prior writs | Held against McCuller — defects could have been raised on appeal; appeal is an adequate remedy |
| Application of res judicata to repeat challenges to bindovers | McCuller: seeks relief despite earlier proceedings | Respondent: prior writ action and direct appeals disposed or could have disposed of same claims | Held — claim- and issue-preclusion bar four of the five claims because they were or could have been litigated earlier |
| Whether compelling a new bindover would provide meaningful relief in the remaining case | McCuller: requests juvenile court proceed on bindover in case with no later prosecution | Respondent: no prosecution occurred; compelling bindover would be a vain act | Held — no meaningful relief; writ will not issue to compel a vain act |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (writ standards; procedendo elements)
- State ex rel. Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 73 Ohio St.3d 180 (procedendo appropriate where court refuses to enter judgment or unnecessarily delays)
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (mandamus standards; appeal as adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (appeal generally an adequate legal remedy to preclude extraordinary writ)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (res judicata principles: claim and issue preclusion)
- Natl. Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale, 53 Ohio St.3d 60 (res judicata bars claims that were or might have been litigated)
- State ex rel. Vaughn v. Money, 104 Ohio St.3d 322 (writ will not issue to compel a vain act)
- State ex rel. Cotton v. Ghee, 84 Ohio St.3d 54 (same: relief that would be vain will not be granted)