State ex rel. Smith v. Hall (Slip Opinion), 145 Ohio St. 3d 473

James Smith was indicted in September 2004 (2004-CR-03060) and reindicted in February 2005 (2004-CR-03060-B); the earlier indictment was dismissed and the 2005 indictment proceeded.
In March 2005 a jury convicted Smith of aggravated burglary and rape; he received an aggregate 17-year sentence.
Smith repeatedly challenged his conviction via direct appeal and postconviction motions, including a 2012 motion for a new trial claiming he was convicted on a dismissed indictment; that motion was denied and the denial was appealed to the Second District.
The Second District rejected Smith’s argument that his conviction rested on the dismissed 2004 indictment, noting the 2005 reindictment controlled.
In September 2014 Smith filed for a writ of prohibition against Judges Hall and Adkins, again alleging conviction on a dismissed indictment and seeking relief from the trial court’s jurisdiction.
The Second District dismissed the prohibition petition, holding Smith had adequate remedies (appeal/habeas) and that prohibition was inappropriate; the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Smith was convicted on a dismissed indictment	Smith: conviction and sentence are invalid because they arose from a dismissed (nolle) indictment	State/Respondents: Smith was reindicted in 2005 and lawfully convicted under that indictment; court had jurisdiction	Held: No jurisdictional defect; conviction was on the 2005 indictment
Whether prohibition is an appropriate remedy	Smith: seeks extraordinary relief to void conviction and sentence	Respondents: Smith has adequate remedies (direct appeal, habeas); prohibition is improper substitute	Held: Prohibition denied; appeal/habeas are adequate remedies
Whether a writ of prohibition should issue despite prior appellate review	Smith: jurisdictional defect persists and warrants prohibition	Respondents: the claim was litigated on appeal and rejected; no clear right to prohibition	Held: Claim was previously considered and rejected; prohibition unavailable
Whether denial of writ would cause irreparable injury with no other remedy	Smith: incarceration under an allegedly void judgment requires extraordinary relief	Respondents: habeas corpus is the proper vehicle for release; ordinary remedies exist	Held: Denial of prohibition does not produce an injury lacking an adequate legal remedy

State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 Ohio St.3d 114 (2012) (elements required for a writ of prohibition)
Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Oil & Gas Comm., 135 Ohio St.3d 204 (2013) (patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction required for prohibition)
State ex rel. Caskey v. Gano, 135 Ohio St.3d 175 (2013) (extraordinary relief is unavailable where adequate remedy by appeal exists)
Dzina v. Celebrezze, 108 Ohio St.3d 385 (2006) (appeal is an adequate remedy barring prohibition)
State ex rel. Skyway Invest. Corp. v. Ashtabula Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 130 Ohio St.3d 220 (2011) (reiterating that appeal precludes prohibition absent patent jurisdictional defect)