Title: State ex rel. Harsh v. Oney

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. Harsh v. Oney, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-458.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-458 
THE STATE EX REL. HARSH, APPELLANT, v. ONEY, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Harsh v. Oney, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-458.] 
Mandamus and prohibition—Res judicata—Adequate remedy at law—Court of 
appeals’ judgment dismissing complaint affirmed. 
(No. 2013-1051—Submitted November 5, 2013—Decided February 13, 2014.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Butler County, No. CA2013-05-0069. 
_____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is the appeal of a case in mandamus and prohibition filed by 
appellant, Robert Harsh, against appellee, Butler County Court of Common Pleas 
Judge Patricia Oney, regarding his sentence for a felony DUI conviction.  Because 
Harsh brought an earlier mandamus case raising the same issues, which was 
previously dismissed by the court of appeals, the current mandamus claim is 
precluded by res judicata and was properly dismissed.  And because Harsh had an 
adequate remedy at law by way of appeal from his original sentence and Judge 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Oney had subject-matter jurisdiction to try Harsh and to sentence him, the 
prohibition claim was also properly dismissed.  We affirm. 
Facts 
{¶ 2} Harsh was sentenced to seven years’ incarceration after he was 
found guilty in a jury trial of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of 
alcohol, of a specification for having previously been convicted of other such 
offenses, and of driving with a suspended license.  He challenges the legality of 
his convictions and sentence and filed a petition in mandamus and prohibition in 
the Twelfth District Court of Appeals against Judge Oney, the trial judge who 
sentenced him.  The court of appeals granted Judge Oney’s motion to dismiss the 
case. 
Analysis 
{¶ 3} Harsh filed a previous action in mandamus in the Twelfth District 
concerning the same issues he raises here.  Judge Oney in her brief in the court of 
appeals in this case extensively cited the court of appeals’ final entry in that case.  
The court of appeals dismissed that previous action because Harsh had an 
adequate remedy at law, stating that his affidavit of prior civil actions 
demonstrated that he had extensively litigated his convictions.  The court of 
appeals here found that Harsh’s current mandamus claim is barred by res judicata 
because of the earlier mandamus action. 
{¶ 4} Res judicata “involves both claim preclusion (historically called 
estoppel by judgment in Ohio) and issue preclusion (traditionally known as 
collateral estoppel).”  Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 381, 653 
N.E.2d 226 (1995).  Claim preclusion provides that “ ‘[a] final judgment or decree 
rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent 
jurisdiction * * * is a complete bar to any subsequent action on the same claim or 
cause of action between the parties or those in privity with them.’ ”  Id., quoting 
January Term, 2014 
 
3
Norwood v. McDonald, 142 Ohio St. 299, 52 N.E.2d 67 (1943), paragraph one of 
the syllabus. 
{¶ 5} Here, Harsh has previously tried to obtain relief by way of a 
mandamus action.  He did not appeal the dismissal of that previous case, and 
therefore the matter has been decided.  The court of appeals correctly dismissed 
Harsh’s mandamus claim in this case on the basis of res judicata. 
{¶ 6} To be entitled to the requested writ of prohibition, Harsh must 
establish that (1) Judge Oney is about to or has exercised judicial power, (2) the 
exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denying the writ would 
result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course 
of law.  State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer, 131 Ohio St.3d 114, 2012-Ohio-54, 961 
N.E.2d 181, ¶ 18; State ex rel. Miller v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 130 Ohio 
St.3d 24, 2011-Ohio-4623, 955 N.E.2d 379, ¶ 12.  The third prerequisite need not 
be established when the lower court lacks jurisdiction:  “Where jurisdiction is 
patently and unambiguously lacking, relators need not establish the lack of an 
adequate remedy at law because the availability of alternate remedies like appeal 
would be immaterial.”  State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals, 118 
Ohio St.3d 368, 2008-Ohio-2637, 889 N.E.2d 500, ¶ 15. 
{¶ 7} The lower court correctly held that not only did Harsh have an 
adequate remedy at law, but that Judge Oney did not lack the jurisdiction to try 
Harsh and to sentence him for a fourth-degree-felony DUI offense.  Judge Oney 
had the basic jurisdiction to sentence Harsh, and Harsh should have appealed the 
sentencing order to raise any concerns he had with his convictions or his sentence.  
The Twelfth District was correct in dismissing this case, and we affirm. 
{¶ 8} Harsh’s various motions are denied as moot. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
_____________________ 
 
Robert Harsh, pro se. 
_____________________