2019 Ohio 4129
Ohio2019Background:
- In 2006 a grand jury indicted Joseph A. Sands on RICO, multiple conspiracy-to-commit-aggravated-murder counts, and conspiracy-to-commit-aggravated-arson counts; a jury convicted him and he was sentenced to 20 years (convictions and sentence affirmed on direct appeal).
- In January 2018 Sands filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the court of appeals, arguing the indictment failed to: (a) notify him of the predicate offenses underlying the RICO and conspiracy counts and (b) allege essential elements of those predicate offenses; he sought dismissal of the indictment.
- Appellees (the trial judge and the county prosecutor) moved to dismiss or for summary judgment and argued Sands failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) and that Sands had an adequate remedy at law (and the claims were barred by res judicata).
- The court of appeals granted summary judgment for appellees, holding Sands’s claims were barred by res judicata and concluding the indictment adequately described the predicate acts; it denied Sands’s petition.
- On appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court Sands also filed procedural motions under S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07(B) claiming appellees failed to file a brief and that appellees’ brief was defective; the Court denied those procedural motions and affirmed the court of appeals.
- The Supreme Court held mandamus is not the proper remedy to challenge an indictment (an appeal is the adequate remedy), and that the indictment here was legally sufficient because a grand jury need not recite every element of each predicate offense.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is available to challenge the sufficiency of an indictment | Sands: mandamus should compel dismissal because the indictment failed to give notice of predicate offenses/elements | Appellees: mandamus is improper because Sands has an adequate remedy by appeal; claims are barred by res judicata | Mandamus unavailable; appeal is the adequate remedy; res judicata bars Sands’ claims |
| Whether the indictment failed to identify predicate offenses or allege essential elements | Sands: indictment did not name or allege required elements of predicate offenses for RICO and conspiracy | Appellees: indictment sufficiently described predicate acts and listed elements where required; grand jury need not recite every element of each predicate offense | Indictment was sufficient; grand jury not required to set forth every element of each predicate offense |
| Procedural: failure of appellees to file a brief / S.Ct.Prac.R.16.07(B) relief | Sands: appellees’ lack of brief (and later alleged defects) entitles him to reversal under 16.07(B) | Appellees: they did not receive service of the brief; Court allowed them to file late brief and they did so | Court denied Sands’ motion; appellees were given leave to file and did file a timely merit brief |
| Procedural: conversion of motion to dismiss to summary judgment without notice | Sands: court of appeals erred by converting the motion without giving notice/opportunity to respond | Appellees: conversion (or lack of formal notice) does not entitle Sands to relief because mandamus is not the proper remedy and claims fail on the merits | Even if conversion notice was flawed, judgment affirmed because mandamus was not available and indictment was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 960 N.E.2d 452 (Ohio 2012) (elements required for mandamus relief)
- State ex rel. Hamilton v. Brunner, 825 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio 2005) (mandamus not proper vehicle to attack indictment)
- State ex rel. Bennett v. White, 757 N.E.2d 364 (Ohio 2001) (appeal is adequate remedy to challenge charging instrument)
- State v. Buehner, 853 N.E.2d 1162 (Ohio 2006) (grand jury need not state every element of predicate offenses)
- State v. Quarterman, 19 N.E.3d 900 (Ohio 2014) (issues raised first in a reply brief generally are not considered)
- Salloum v. Falkowski, 90 N.E.3d 918 (Ohio 2017) (affirming correct judgment despite erroneous reasoning)
- Joyce v. Gen. Motors Corp., 551 N.E.2d 172 (Ohio 1990) (cannot reverse a correct judgment solely because wrong reasons were given)
- Johnson v. Moore, 77 N.E.3d 967 (Ohio 2017) (court may affirm despite alternative erroneous basis below)