STATE OF OHIO ex rel. DAMANTAE GRAHAM, Relator, - vs - LAURIE J. PITTMAN, JUDGE, Respondent.
CASE NO. 2021-P-0023
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO
2021-Ohio-665
[Cite as State ex rel. Graham v. Pittman, 2021-Ohio-665.]
MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J.
Original Action for Writ of Prohibition.
Judgment: Petition dismissed.
Donald J. Malarcik, Malarcik, Pierce, Munyer and Will, 121 South Main Street, Suite 520, Akron, OH 44308; Michelle E. Umana and Randall L. Porter, Assistant State Public Defenders, Office of the Ohio Public Defender, 250 East Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus, OH 43215 (For Relator).
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Pamela J. Holder, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Respondent).
MARY JANE TRAPP, P.J.
{¶1} Relator, Damantae Graham, seeks a writ of prohibition against respondent, Laurie J. Pittman, Judge of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, from conducting his resentencing hearing currently scheduled for March 8, 2021. Respondent moves to dismiss relator‘s complaint. Relator filed a response to respondent‘s motion to dismiss. For the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss is granted.
{¶3} “In regard to the ‘adequate remedy’ element of the writ, * * * a direct appeal of the trial court‘s jurisdictional determination is a sufficient legal remedy which acts as a bar to a prohibition claim. Feathers, 2007-Ohio-3852, at ¶ 10, citing Hughes v. Calabrese, 95 Ohio St.3d 334, 767 N.E.2d 725, 2002-Ohio-2217. * * *
{¶4} “‘As to the second and third elements for the writ, this court has emphasized that the absence of an adequate legal remedy is not necessary when the lack of judicial authority to act is patent and unambiguous; i.e., if the lack of jurisdiction is clear, the writ will lie upon proof of the first two elements only. * * * However, if the lack of jurisdiction is not patent and unambiguous, the fact that a party can appeal a lower court‘s decision
{¶5} “‘[I]f there are no set of facts under which a trial court or judge could have jurisdiction over a particular case, the alleged jurisdictional defect will always be considered patent and unambiguous. On the other hand, if the court or judge generally has subject matter jurisdiction over the type of case in question and [her] authority to hear that specific case will depend on the specific facts before [her], the jurisdictional defect is not obvious and the court/judge should be allowed to decide the jurisdictional issue.‘” State ex rel. Huntington Natl. Bank v. Kontos, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2013-T-0089, 2014-Ohio-1374, ¶ 12, quoting Leatherworks at ¶ 19.
{¶6} In State v. Graham, --- Ohio St.3d ---, 2020-Ohio-6700, --- N.E.3d ---, the Supreme Court of Ohio vacated relator‘s death sentence and remanded the cause to the trial court for resentencing consistent with
{¶7} Relator argues that respondent patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction as a result of his pending application in the Supreme Court of Ohio. Relator cites no legal authority directly stating this legal proposition. Rather, he argues that his application for reopening is analogous to (1) a trial court‘s loss of jurisdiction following the
{¶8} Without direct legal authority indicating a subsequent application for reopening filed in the Supreme Court of Ohio is the functional equivalent of an appeal or deprives a trial court of jurisdiction, we cannot say respondent‘s lack of jurisdiction is patent and unambiguous.
{¶9} Further, an application for reopening in the Supreme Court of Ohio is governed by the court‘s own specific rules of practice. Specifically,
{¶10} We conclude that relator has not established that there are no set of facts under which the trial court could have jurisdiction. Accordingly, respondent‘s motion to dismiss is granted.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,
MATT LYNCH, J.,
concur.