Case Title: State ex rel. Pesci v. Lucci

Citation: 2007-Ohio-4795

Docket Number: 20070842

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-09-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Pesci v. Lucci, 115 Ohio St.3d 218, 2007-Ohio-4795.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. PESCI, APPELLANT, v. LUCCI, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Pesci v. Lucci, 115 Ohio St.3d 218, 2007-Ohio-4795.] 
Writ of prohibition seeking to vacate criminal conviction denied. 
(No. 2007-0842 ─ Submitted September 12, 2007 ─ Decided  
September 20, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lake County, 
No. 2006-L-112, 2007-Ohio-1547. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment denying a writ of prohibition to 
vacate a criminal conviction and sentence.  Because the true objective of the 
prohibition claim is to secure the convict’s release from prison, we affirm the 
denial of the writ. 
{¶ 2} In 2001, appellant, James E. Pesci, was convicted of three counts 
of burglary and sentenced to prison.  On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the 
judgment of conviction and sentence.  State v. Pesci, Lake App. No. 2001-L-026, 
2002-Ohio-7131.  We did not accept Pesci’s discretionary appeal for review.  
State v. Pesci, 98 Ohio St.3d 1566, 2003-Ohio-2242, 787 N.E.2d 1231. 
{¶ 3} In 2006, Pesci filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Lake 
County for a writ of prohibition to stop “the trial court’s judicial power” in his 
criminal case.  Pesci claimed that the judge who presided over his criminal trial in 
the Lake County Common Pleas Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed in that case 
because of an improperly reinstated indictment.  Judge Lucci filed a motion to 
dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.  In his response to Judge 
Lucci’s motion, Pesci claimed that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict 
and sentence him because of the improperly reinstated indictment and the denial 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
of his right to a speedy trial.  In March 2007, the court of appeals granted Judge 
Lucci’s motion for summary judgment and denied the writ. 
{¶ 4} In his appeal as of right, Pesci claims that the court of appeals 
erred in denying his requested extraordinary relief in prohibition.  In a 
memorandum in support of jurisdiction, Pesci requests that we declare his 
criminal case void and release him from prison.  In his merit brief, Pesci claims 
that he is entitled to the requested writ because the trial court denied him his right 
to a speedy trial. 
{¶ 5} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.  Pesci requests 
release from prison, “but habeas corpus, rather than prohibition, is the appropriate 
action to obtain this type of relief.”  State ex rel. Foster v. Belmont Cty. Court of 
Common Pleas, 107 Ohio St.3d 195, 2005-Ohio-6184, 837 N.E.2d 777, ¶ 5; State 
ex rel. Nelson v. Griffin, 103 Ohio St.3d 167, 2004-Ohio-4754, 814 N.E.2d 866, ¶ 
5. 
{¶ 6} Moreover, Pesci’s claims that he was denied his right to a speedy 
trial and that his indictment was invalid are not cognizable in an extraordinary-
writ proceeding because he had an adequate remedy by way of appeal to raise 
these claims.  State ex rel. Hamilton v. Brunner, 105 Ohio St.3d 304, 2004-Ohio-
1735, 825 N.E.2d 607, ¶ 7; State ex rel. Dix v. McAllister (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 
107, 108, 689 N.E.2d 561. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
James E. Pesci, pro se. 
 
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael L. 
DeLeone, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________