Case Title: Plaintiff v. Defendant

Citation: 2015-Ohio-3628

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-09-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Elder v. Camplese, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-3628.] 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2015-OHIO-3628 
THE STATE EX REL. ELDER, APPELLANT, v. CAMPLESE, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
(TWO CASES.) 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Elder v. Camplese, Slip Opinion No.  
2015-Ohio-3628.] 
Prohibition—Alleged defects in “complaint” do not affect court’s jurisdiction 
when complaint referred to is victim’s complaint—Relator has adequate 
remedy in ordinary course of law—Judgments dismissing petitions 
affirmed. 
(Nos. 2014-2021 and 2014-2022—Submitted May 5, 2015—Decided  
September 8, 2015.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ashtabula County, No. 2014-A-0039, 
2014-Ohio-4546. 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ashtabula County, No. 2014-A-0041, 
2014-Ohio-4547. 
_____________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the Ashtabula County Court of Appeals’ dismissal of two 
complaints for writs of prohibition.  We have sua sponte consolidated the two 
appeals for decision. 
{¶ 2} Appellant in both cases, Emmanuel Elder, filed actions in 
prohibition against appellee, Judge Albert S. Camplese, the judge who presided 
over two criminal cases against Elder in the Ashtabula Municipal Court.  Case 
No. 2014-2021 (Ashtabula App. No. 2014-A-0039) concerns Elder’s 2013 
conviction for aggravated menacing.  Case No. 2014-2022 (Ashtabula App. No. 
2014-A-0041) concerns Elder’s 2013 conviction for unauthorized use of property.  
In both cases, Judge Camplese accepted Elder’s pleas of no contest and convicted 
and sentenced him accordingly. 
{¶ 3} In the first case, Elder seeks a writ prohibiting Judge Camplese from 
asserting authority over him, claiming that the complaint in that case was 
insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the judge and that a variety of violations of 
his rights took place during the course of his arrest and arraignment.  In the 
second, Elder asserts that the case against him was initiated without a sworn 
affidavit from the alleged victim, which, he claims, rendered the complaint invalid 
and deprived the court of jurisdiction to issue a judgment.  He further requests 
that the DNA profile collected from him as a result of that conviction be 
expunged from the Ohio database.  Finally, he asks that both of his convictions be 
vacated. 
{¶ 4} Because he has an adequate remedy at law in both cases by way of 
direct appeal of his criminal convictions, and because Judge Camplese did not 
patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to preside over a criminal matter, 
the Eleventh District Court of Appeals properly dismissed both of Elder’s 
complaints for prohibition.  We affirm both dismissals. 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
{¶ 5} In addition, because his motions for default judgment and summary 
judgment in both cases are without merit, we deny them. 
Facts 
Case No. 2014-2021: 
{¶ 6} Elder alleges that in November 2012, his ex-fiancée filed a 
complaint against him alleging menacing by stalking.  (The resulting charge was 
later amended to a charge of aggravated menacing.)  He claims that this complaint 
contained insufficient probable cause to sustain the warrant for his arrest and was 
insufficient to sustain the court’s jurisdiction.  He also complains of numerous 
alleged violations of his constitutional and other rights during the course of his 
confinement, arraignment, and plea. 
{¶ 7} Judge Camplese filed a motion to dismiss, and Elder filed a 
response.  The court of appeals granted the motion to dismiss.  Elder has 
appealed. 
Case No. 2014-2022: 
{¶ 8} Elder alleges that in November 2012, he was arrested on a charge of  
breaking and entering, which was later amended to a charge of unauthorized use 
of property.  He claims that no sworn affidavit was filed by “the true party of 
intrest [sic],” in other words, the victim. Elder contends that as a result, the 
complaint was insufficient to show probable cause that he committed the offense. 
{¶ 9} Elder asserts that the filing of a valid complaint is a prerequisite to 
the court’s acquisition of jurisdiction and that the court lacked such jurisdiction 
because the complaint was insufficient.  Without a valid complaint, Elder asserts, 
the state cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the alleged 
offense within the court’s territorial jurisdiction, and he cannot prepare a defense. 
{¶ 10} Elder further states that the conviction was obtained in violation of 
his rights against unreasonable search and seizure and his rights to a fair and 
speedy trial and to due process and equal protection. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 11} Elder asserts that Judge Camplese intends to exercise judicial 
authority over him despite the lack of subject-matter, personal, or territorial 
jurisdiction.  Elder claims that he has exhausted his administrative remedies and 
that he filed a motion in the municipal court to vacate the judgment for lack of 
jurisdiction in both cases, but the motions have been ignored.  He asserts that he 
has no adequate remedy at law.  He requests that the court void or vacate his 
conviction, “expunge” the DNA profile collected from him from the Ohio DNA 
data bank, and expunge his conviction from the public record.  He also requests 
the issuance of a writ under R.C. 2305.02 (jurisdiction of common pleas court to 
hear action for wrongful imprisonment) and 2743.48 (action against state for 
wrongful imprisonment). 
{¶ 12} Judge Camplese did not file any pleading or motion in response to 
Elder’s complaint.  Nevertheless, Elder filed a “motion to dismiss respondent’s 
motion to dismiss.”  The court of appeals issued a judgment entry and opinion 
dismissing Elder’s complaint. Elder has appealed. 
Analysis 
{¶ 13} To be entitled to the requested writ of prohibition in either case, 
Elder must establish that (1) Judge Camplese is about to or has exercised judicial 
power, (2) the exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denying the 
writ would result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in the 
ordinary course of law.  State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 Ohio St.3d 114, 2012-
Ohio-54, 961 N.E.2d 181, ¶ 18; State ex rel. Miller v. Warren Cty. Bd. of 
Elections, 130 Ohio St.3d 24, 2011-Ohio-4623, 955 N.E.2d 379, ¶ 12.  Elder need 
not establish the lack of an adequate remedy if he can show that the lack of 
jurisdiction is “patent and unambiguous.”  Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Oil 
& Gas Comm., 135 Ohio St.3d 204, 2013-Ohio-224, 985 N.E.2d 480, ¶ 11. 
{¶ 14} Judge Camplese undoubtedly took judicial action in presiding over 
Elder’s criminal cases and accepting his pleas in both cases.  However, Elder has 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
alternate remedies at law by way of appeal from the underlying convictions, and 
Judge Camplese did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction over either 
case. 
{¶ 15} Specifically, “[a]n extraordinary writ cannot challenge the validity 
or sufficiency of a charging instrument, and [relator] has an adequate remedy in 
the ordinary course of law by appeal to raise his claim that the criminal complaint 
was defective.” Monroe v. Jackson, 119 Ohio St. 3d 344, 2008-Ohio-4480, 894 
N.E.2d 43, ¶ 4, citing State ex rel. Elko v. Suster, 110 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-
4248, 852 N.E.2d 731, ¶ 3. 
{¶ 16} Nor was Judge Camplese patently without jurisdiction in either 
case. “The municipal court has jurisdiction to hear misdemeanor cases committed 
within its territory * * *.”  R.C. 1901.20(A)(1).  All of Elder’s convictions were 
for misdemeanors, and he makes no explicit claim that they were committed 
outside the territory of Judge Camplese’s court. 
{¶ 17} Finally, as to the sufficiency of the complaint in each case, Elder is 
evidently confused by the concept of a complaint in a criminal case.  He appears 
to believe that the statement of the victim is the “complaint” whose validity 
determines the jurisdiction of the court. But the difference between a victim’s 
statement and the complaint that actually initiates the formal proceedings against 
the accused is described in R.C. 2935.09(D):   
 
A private citizen having knowledge of the facts who seeks 
to cause an arrest or prosecution under this section may file an 
affidavit charging the offense committed with a reviewing official 
for the purpose of review to determine if a complaint should be 
filed by the prosecuting attorney or attorney charged by law with 
the prosecution of offenses in the court or before the magistrate. 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
{¶ 18} Elder contends in case No. 2014-2021 that the complaining 
witness’s affidavit did not contain the information required by Crim.R. 3.  This 
does not amount to a defect in the criminal complaint.  In case No. 2014-2022, the 
victim did not file any affidavit, but that also does not amount to a defect in the 
complaint. 
{¶ 19} We therefore affirm the court of appeals’ dismissal in both cases. 
{¶ 20} Elder also filed motions in this court for default judgment and for 
summary judgment in both cases.  The motions argue that because Judge 
Camplese failed to file a brief in either case in this court, the court should find 
Camplese in default and rule for Elder on the merits.  However, S.Ct.Prac.R. 
16.07(B) states that if the appellee fails to timely file a merit brief, “the Supreme 
Court may accept the appellant’s statement of facts and issues as correct and 
reverse the judgment if the appellant’s brief reasonably appears to sustain 
reversal.”  (Emphasis added.)  Here, Elder’s briefs do not reasonably appear to 
sustain reversal, so we affirm the judgments in both cases and deny all motions. 
Judgments affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_____________________ 
 
Emmanuel Elder, pro se. 
________________________