Title: State ex rel. Bandarapalli v. Gallagher

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Bandarapalli v. Gallagher, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-230.] 
 
 
 
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-230 
THE STATE EX REL. BANDARAPALLI, APPELLANT, v. 
GALLAGHER, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Bandarapalli v. Gallagher, Slip Opinion No. 2011-
Ohio-230.] 
Prohibition — Alleged defective indictment — Claim not recognized in 
prohibition — Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2010-1549 — Submitted January 19, 2011 — Decided January 26, 2011.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 95506, 2010-Ohio-3886. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 
complaint of appellant, Rajpal Bandarapalli, for a writ of prohibition to prevent 
appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Eileen T. Gallagher, 
from proceeding in the underlying criminal case against him.  Bandarapalli claims 
that his indictment is defective.  Bandarapalli has adequate remedies in the 
ordinary course of law by motion to dismiss the indictment and, in the event he is 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2
convicted based on the alleged defective indictment, by appeal.  See, e.g., State ex 
rel. Parker v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 351, 
352, 15 O.O.3d 435, 402 N.E.2d 508; State ex rel. Johnson v. Talikka (1994), 71 
Ohio St.3d 109, 111, 642 N.E.2d 353; Pishok v. Kelly, 122 Ohio St.3d 292, 2009-
Ohio-3452, 910 N.E.2d 1033, ¶ 1.  Bandarapalli’s reliance on State v. Cimpritz 
(1953), 158 Ohio St. 490, 49 O.O. 418, 110 N.E.2d 416, paragraph six of the 
syllabus, to claim that he may raise a claim that his indictment is defective in a 
collateral proceeding like prohibition is misplaced because we later clarified 
Cimpritz by holding that a defective-indictment claim could be raised only by 
direct challenge in the ordinary course of law rather than in a collateral attack by 
extraordinary writ.  See State v. Wozniak (1961), 172 Ohio St. 517, 522-523, 18 
O.O.2d 58, 178 N.E.2d 800, and Midling v. Perrini (1968), 14 Ohio St.2d 106, 43 
O.O.2d 171, 236 N.E.2d 557, syllabus. 
{¶ 2} Bandarapalli’s remaining prohibition claim – that Judge Gallagher 
cannot preside over his criminal trial because she ruled on the state’s motion 
under Crim.R. 16 to withhold witnesses’ names and addresses and to prevent 
contact between Bandarapalli and the witnesses – is reviewable on appeal for 
harmless error.  See State v. Gillard (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 226, 229-230, 533 
N.E.2d 272, reversed on other grounds by State v. McGuire (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 
390, 686 N.E.2d 1112. 
{¶ 3} Based on the foregoing, Bandarapalli’s claims allege, at best, 
errors in the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction rather than a lack of subject-matter 
jurisdiction.  See State ex rel. Mosier v. Fornof, 126 Ohio St.3d 47, 2010-Ohio-
2516, 930 N.E.2d 305, ¶ 7.  Therefore, the court of appeals properly dismissed his 
complaint for extraordinary relief in prohibition. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2011 
3 
_____________________ 
 
Rajpal Bandarapalli, pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. 
Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_____________________