THE STATE EX REL. BANDARAPALLI, APPELLANT, v. GALLAGHER, JUDGE, APPELLEE.
No. 2010-1549
Supreme Court of Ohio
January 26, 2011
128 Ohio St.3d 314, 2011-Ohio-230
Submitted January 19, 2011
{110} Therefore, the court of appеals did not err in dismissing DeGroot‘s amended petition for a writ of mandamus, and we affirm the court‘s judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
Ely M.T. Ryder, for appellant.
John R. Curp, Cincinnаti City Solicitor, and Richard Ganulin and Paula Boggs Muething, Assistant City Solicitors, for appellees.
Per Curiam.
{11} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint of appellant, Rajpal Bandarapalli, for a writ of prohibition to prevеnt appellee, Cuyahoga County Cоurt of Common Pleas Judge Eileen T. Gallagher, from proceeding in the underlying criminal case against him. Bandarapalli claims that his indictment is defective. Bandaraрalli has adequate remedies in the оrdinary course of law by motion to dismiss the indictment and, in the event he is convicted based on the alleged defective indictment, by appeal. See, e.g., State ex rel. Parker v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 351, 352, 15 O.O.3d 435, 402 N.E.2d 508; State ex rel. Johnson v. Talikka (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 109, 111, 642 N.E.2d 353; Pishok v. Kelly, 122 Ohio St.3d 292, 2009-Ohio-3452, 910 N.E.2d 1033, ¶ 1. Bandarapalli‘s reliance on State v. Cimpritz (1953), 158 Ohio St. 490, 49 O.O. 418, 110 N.E.2d 416, рaragraph six of the syllabus, to contеnd that he may raise a claim that his indictment is defective in a collateral proceeding like prohibition is misplaced because we later clarified Cimpritz by holding that a defective-indictment claim could be raised only by direct challеnge in the ordinary course of law rather than in a collateral attack by extraordinary writ. See State v. Wozniak (1961), 172 Ohio St. 517, 522-523, 18 O.O.2d 58, 178 N.E.2d 800, and Midling v. Perrini (1968), 14 Ohio St.2d 106, 43 O.O.2d 171, 236 N.E.2d 557, syllabus.
{12} Bandarapаlli‘s remaining prohibition claim—that Judge Gallаgher cannot preside over his criminal trial because she ruled on the statе‘s motion under
{13} Based on thе foregoing, Bandarapalli‘s claims allege, at best, errors in the exercise of the court‘s jurisdiction rather than a lаck of subject-matter jurisdiction. See State ex rel. Mosier v. Fornof, 126 Ohio St.3d 47, 2010-Ohio-2516, 930 N.E.2d 305, ¶ 7. Thеrefore, the court of appeals properly dismissed his complaint fоr extraordinary relief in prohibition.
Judgment affirmed.
O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, аnd MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.
Rajpal Bandarapalli, pro se.
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.