Case Title: State ex rel. Pruitt v. Common Court of Pleas

Citation: 2011-Ohio-4203

Docket Number: 20110520

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-08-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Pruitt v. Donnelly, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4203.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-4203 
THE STATE EX REL. PRUITT, APPELLANT, v. DONNELLY, JUDGE, ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Pruitt v. Donnelly, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4203.] 
Mandamus and Prohibition — Relator’s claim that he had not pleaded guilty to 
certain charges not cognizable in mandamus or prohibition — Any error 
in sentencing does not deprive court of jurisdiction — Writs denied. 
(No. 2011-0520 — Submitted August 8, 2011 — Decided August 31, 2011.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 95518, 2011-Ohio-1252. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 
complaint of appellant, Michael Jarmal Pruitt, for writs of mandamus and 
prohibition to compel appellees, common pleas court judges, to vacate his 
convictions and sentence. Pruitt claimed that despite the language in his 
sentencing entry, he had not entered pleas of guilty to having a weapon while 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
under disability and to a firearm specification relating to an attempted-murder 
charge. 
{¶ 2} The common pleas court had jurisdiction over Pruitt’s criminal 
proceeding, including sentencing.  See R.C. 2931.03.  Error in sentencing does 
not patently and unambiguously divest the court or its judges of jurisdiction to 
enter judgment.  “In the absence of a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, 
a court having general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine its own 
jurisdiction, and a party contesting that jurisdiction has an adequate remedy by 
appeal.”  State ex rel. Plant v. Cosgrove, 119 Ohio St.3d 264, 2008-Ohio-3838, 
893 N.E.2d 485, ¶ 5; see also State ex rel. Cunningham v. Lindeman, 126 Ohio 
St.3d 481, 2010-Ohio-4388, 935 N.E.2d 393, ¶ 1 (petitioner seeking writs of 
mandamus or procedendo had adequate remedy by appeal to raise claimed 
sentencing errors). 
{¶ 3} As the court of appeals observed, none of the cases cited by Pruitt 
hold that a trial court error relating to whether a plea had been entered deprived 
the court of subject-matter jurisdiction.  See State v. Smith (Mar. 28, 1991), 
Cuyahoga App. Nos. 58334, 58418, and 58443, 1991 WL 41730; Cleveland v. 
Wainwright (Nov. 17, 1977), Cuyahoga App. No. 36623, 1977 WL 201633; State 
v. Davis (Sept. 7, 2000), Cuyahoga App. No. 76085, 2000 WL 1281209.  And all 
of these cases were resolved in the ordinary course of law by appeal rather than in 
an action for an extraordinary writ.  See State ex rel. Brooks v. O’Malley, 117 
Ohio St.3d 385, 2008-Ohio-1118, 884 N.E.2d 42, ¶ 12. 
{¶ 4} Therefore, Pruitt had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of 
law to raise his claims, and the court of appeals properly dismissed his claims for 
extraordinary relief in mandamus and prohibition. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
__________________ 
 
Michael Jarmal Pruitt, pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. 
Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. 
______________________