State ex rel. Steele v. McClelland (Slip Opinion), 116 N.E.3d 1267

In 2006 Steele was indicted in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-06-484795-A on multiple sexual-offense counts; a second, largely identical indictment (CR-06-489173-A) was later filed that changed two counts to rape.
On December 6, 2006, on the day trial was to begin, the prosecutor orally moved to dismiss the first indictment so the state could proceed on the second; the trial court granted the motion and entered a dismissal journal entry.
Steele subsequently pleaded guilty to five counts of gross sexual imposition and was sentenced to 15 years in prison (plea pertained to charges resolved after the dismissals/indictments process).
In June 2017 Steele filed a mandamus and prohibition petition in the appellate court seeking an order directing the trial judge to vacate the 2006 dismissal entry as void and restore the parties to their pre-dismissal positions.
The Eighth District granted the judge’s summary-judgment motion, holding the dismissal was proper (second indictment constituted "good cause"), and that Steele had an adequate remedy at law; this Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal of the first indictment was void for lack of "good cause" under R.C. 2941.33	Steele: dismissal was void because the court did not find "good cause" before allowing dismissal	State/Judge: existence of the second indictment (changed counts) constituted good cause to dismiss the first	Held: dismissal was proper; second indictment provided good cause
Whether misidentification of the case number in open court rendered the dismissal void	Steele: misidentified case number in the hearing created fatal confusion making the entry void	State/Judge: transcript shows the misidentification was inconsequential and corrected at the hearing	Held: harmless clerical error; did not render dismissal void
Whether mandamus/prohibition was appropriate given alternative remedies	Steele: sought extraordinary relief to void dismissal	State/Judge: Steele had adequate remedies (could move to dismiss the second indictment and appeal)	Held: adequate remedy at law existed; extraordinary writs unavailable
Whether the prosecutor needed leave of court to seek a second indictment	Steele: second indictment was sought without leave and thus improper	State/Judge: indictment decisions are prosecutorial discretion; no leave required; claim was waived	Held: no legal requirement for leave; claim waived for failure to raise below

State ex rel. Plant v. Cosgrove, 119 Ohio St.3d 264 (2008) (mandamus/prohibition unavailable where adequate remedy at law exists)
State ex rel. Luoma v. Russo, 141 Ohio St.3d 53 (2014) (availability of appeal is an adequate remedy to preclude a writ)
State ex rel. Dailey v. Dawson, 149 Ohio St.3d 685 (2017) (reaffirming that an adequate remedy at law bars extraordinary writs absent clear lack of jurisdiction)
State v. Mink, 101 Ohio St.3d 350 (2004) (prosecutor has broad discretion to seek indictments)
State ex rel. Sevayega v. Gallagher, 151 Ohio St.3d 208 (2017) (claims not raised in the petition may be waived)