Case Title: Smith v. Warren

Citation: 2000-Ohio-223

Docket Number: 20000429

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-08-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Smith v. Warren, 89 Ohio St.3d 467, 2000-Ohio-223.] 
 
 
 
 
 
SMITH, APPELLANT, v. WARREN, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Smith v. Warren (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 467.] 
Prohibition — Writ sought to compel common pleas court judge to vacate fines 
assessed as part of relator’s criminal convictions and sentence, and to 
return $4,774 to relator — Dismissal of complaint by court of appeals 
affirmed. 
(No. 00-429 — Submitted June 6, 2000 — Decided August 16, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. CA99120103. 
 
In December 1999, appellant, Tobe Smith, filed a complaint in the Court of 
Appeals for Allen County for a writ of prohibition to compel appellee, Allen 
County Common Pleas Court Judge Richard K. Warren, to vacate fines assessed as 
part of Smith’s criminal convictions and sentence, and to return $4,774 to Smith.  
The court of appeals granted Judge Warren’s motion and dismissed the complaint. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Tobe Smith, pro se. 
 
Jana E. Gutman, Allen County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
 
2
 
Per Curiam.  Smith asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his 
prohibition action.  Smith’s assertion is meritless. 
 
Prohibition will not issue if relator has an adequate remedy in the ordinary 
course of law.  State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 316, 
725 N.E.2d 663, 667.  Appeal, not prohibition, is the remedy for the correction of 
errors or irregularities of a court having proper jurisdiction.  State ex rel. Jackson v. 
Miller (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 541, 543, 700 N.E.2d 1273, 1275.  Smith’s assertion 
of sentencing error is nonjurisdictional, and he had an adequate remedy by appeal 
to raise this issue.  Smith v. Walker (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 431, 432, 700 N.E.2d 
592.  Therefore, he was not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in 
prohibition. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.