Case Title: State ex rel. Elko v. Suster

Citation: 2006-Ohio-4248

Docket Number: 20060715

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-08-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Elko v. Suster, 110 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-4248.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. ELKO, APPELLANT, v. SUSTER, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Elko v. Suster, 110 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-4248.] 
Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of mandamus – Mandamus is not 
available to challenge the validity or sufficiency of an indictment – 
Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2006-0715 ─ Submitted July 18, 2006 ─ Decided August 30, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 87140, 2006-Ohio-1082. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ 
of mandamus to compel a common pleas court judge to vacate an inmate’s 
convictions and sentences. 
{¶ 2} Appellant, Jeffrey Elko, is imprisoned on numerous criminal 
convictions, including kidnapping, felonious assault, and sexual battery.  On 
October 11, 2005, Elko filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga 
County to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge 
Ronald Suster, to vacate his convictions and sentences in his criminal cases.  Elko 
claimed that his criminal indictments were void because of the state’s failure to 
follow proper statutory procedures.  Judge Suster filed a motion to dismiss the 
petition, and on March 8, 2006, the court of appeals granted the motion. 
{¶ 3} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.  “ ‘[E]xtraordinary 
relief is not available to attack the validity or sufficiency of a charging instrument, 
and [appellant] had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by appeal to 
raise this claim.’ ”  State ex rel. Nelson v. Griffin, 103 Ohio St.3d 167, 2004-
Ohio-4754, 814 N.E.2d 866, ¶ 6, quoting State ex rel. Bennett v. White (2001), 93 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Ohio St.3d 583, 584, 757 N.E.2d 364.  Consequently, a writ of mandamus will not 
issue to compel Judge Suster to vacate Elko’s convictions and sentences on that 
basis.  State ex rel. Dix v. McAllister (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 107, 108, 689 N.E.2d 
561.  “ ‘The manner by which an accused is charged with a crime is procedural 
rather than jurisdictional, and after a conviction for crimes charged in an 
indictment, the judgment binds the defendant for the crime for which he was 
convicted.’ ”  Nelson, at ¶ 6, quoting Orr v. Mack (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 429, 430, 
700 N.E.2d 590. 
{¶ 4} Moreover, by requesting the vacation of his convictions and 
sentences, Elko essentially seeks release from prison.  But “[h]abeas corpus, 
rather than mandamus, is the proper action to seek this type of relief.”  State ex 
rel. Rowe v. McCown, 108 Ohio St.3d 183, 2006-Ohio-548, 842 N.E.2d 51, ¶ 4. 
{¶ 5} Based on the foregoing, Elko “filed the wrong action for the 
requested relief, and even assuming that he had sought the appropriate writ, he 
would not have been entitled to it.”  Nelson, supra, at ¶ 8.  Therefore, we affirm 
the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jeffrey Elko, pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mary H. 
McGrath, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_____________________