Case Title: State ex rel. Jackim v. Ambrose

Citation: 2008-Ohio-3182

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2008-07-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Jackim v. Ambrose, 118 Ohio St.3d 512, 2008-Ohio-3182.] 
 
THE STATE EX REL. JACKIM, APPELLANT, v. AMBROSE, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Jackim v. Ambrose, 118 Ohio St.3d 512, 2008-Ohio-3182.] 
Prohibition – Petition to prevent trial court judge from proceeding with criminal 
retrial due to claimed  speedy-trial violation – Claim of denial of speedy 
trial not cognizable in extraordinary-writ proceeding – Court of appeals’ 
judgment denying writ affirmed. 
(No. 2008-0168 ─ Submitted June 24, 2008 ─ Decided July 2, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 90785, 2008-Ohio-45. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an action for a writ 
of prohibition to prevent a common pleas court judge from proceeding with a 
second trial in a criminal case based on the appellant’s claim that his right to a 
speedy trial was violated in the original prosecution.  Because the speedy-trial 
claim is not cognizable in an extraordinary-writ case, we affirm. 
{¶ 2} In July 2003, appellant, Bruce A. Jackim, was indicted on one 
count of felonious assault of a police officer, one count of assault on a police 
officer, and one count of resisting arrest.  Jackim subsequently filed a motion to 
dismiss the case based on a claimed violation of his right to a speedy trial.  
Following a jury trial, Jackim was convicted of assault of a police officer and 
resisting arrest and was sentenced to a six-month suspended jail sentence and one 
year of community control. 
{¶ 3} On appeal, the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County reversed the 
judgment because the common pleas court had erred in granting a motion in 
limine excluding a surveillance videotape as well as reference to it at trial.  State 
v. Jackim, Cuyahoga App. Nos. 87012 and 87400, 2006-Ohio-4756.  The court of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
appeals remanded the case for a new trial and ruled that Jackim’s other claims 
were rendered moot because of the court’s ruling.  Id. at ¶ 21. 
{¶ 4} On remand, Jackim again filed a motion to dismiss the case based 
upon a claimed violation of his right to a speedy trial. 
{¶ 5} In December 2007, Jackim filed a petition in the Court of Appeals 
for Cuyahoga County for a writ of prohibition to prevent appellee, Judge Richard 
J. Ambrose of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, from proceeding 
with Jackim’s retrial because of the claimed speedy-trial violation. 
{¶ 6} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.  The claim that 
Jackim was denied his right to a speedy trial is not cognizable in an extraordinary-
writ proceeding.  State ex rel. Pesci v. Lucci, 115 Ohio St.3d 218, 2007-Ohio-
4795, 874 N.E.2d 774, ¶ 6 (prohibition); State ex rel. Hamilton v. Brunner, 105 
Ohio St.3d 304, 2004-Ohio-1735, 825 N.E.2d 607, ¶ 7 (mandamus); Tisdale v. 
Eberlin, 114 Ohio St.3d 201, 2007-Ohio-3833, 870 N.E.2d 1191, ¶ 7 (habeas 
corpus).  He has an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise this claim.  Pesci, 
at ¶ 6.  Appeal following final judgment is not rendered inadequate due to the 
potential time and expense involved.  State ex rel. Abner v. Elliott (1999), 85 Ohio 
St.3d 11, 17, 706 N.E.2d 765. 
{¶ 7} We find no persuasive reason to depart from this well-settled 
precedent in this case. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Catherine M. Brady, for appellant. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and T. Allan 
Regas, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________