Title: Johnson v. Marshall

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Johnson v. Marshall, 101 Ohio St.3d 418, 2004-Ohio-1498.] 
 
 
JOHNSON, APPELLANT, v. MARSHALL, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Johnson v. Marshall, 101 Ohio St.3d 418, 2004-Ohio-1498.] 
Prohibition — Writ sought prohibiting judge of common pleas court from 
proceeding with a sexual predator classification hearing — Court of 
appeals’ dismissal of complaint affirmed. 
(No. 2003-1916 — Submitted March 15, 2004 — Decided April 14, 2004.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Scioto County, No. 03CA2895. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In 1991, appellant, Robert L. Johnson, pled guilty to rape and was 
sentenced to prison. 
{¶2} 
In 1996, the General Assembly enacted a sexual predator 
classification provision in R.C. 2950.09.  Am.Sub.H.B. No. 180, 146 Ohio Laws, 
Part II, 2560, 2618.  Johnson’s trial court scheduled a July 31, 2003 hearing under 
R.C. 2950.09(C) to determine whether Johnson should be classified as a sexual 
predator as a result of his 1991 rape conviction. 
{¶3} 
On July 18, 2003, Johnson filed a complaint in the Court of 
Appeals for Scioto County for a writ of prohibition to prevent appellee, Scioto 
County Common Pleas Court Judge William T. Marshall, from proceeding with 
the July 31, 2003 sexual predator classification hearing.  Johnson claimed that 
Judge Marshall patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to conduct the 
hearing because the judge never received a statutorily required recommendation 
from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”). 
{¶4} 
On July 31, 2003, Judge Marshall conducted a hearing at which 
Johnson stipulated that he was a habitual sexual offender.  On August 1, 2003, 
Judge Marshall classified Johnson as a habitual sexual offender and ordered him 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
to comply with the registration requirements of R.C. 2950.04, 2950.05, 2950.06, 
and 2950.07. 
{¶5} 
Judge Marshall subsequently moved to dismiss Johnson’s 
prohibition claim based on mootness.  In his response to the motion, Johnson 
attached an April 24, 2003 letter from ODRC to the trial court recommending that 
several offenders, including Johnson, be designated as sexual predators.  Johnson 
claimed that the letter was falsified, was never received by Judge Marshall, and 
was not sent in the proper form. 
{¶6} 
On September 24, 2003, the court of appeals dismissed Johnson’s 
complaint. This cause is before the court upon Johnson’s appeal as of right. 
{¶7} 
As the court of appeals correctly concluded, Johnson had an 
adequate remedy by way of appeal from Judge Marshall’s August 1, 2003 
judgment classifying him as a habitual sexual offender.  See State ex rel. 
Bruggeman v. Ingraham (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 230, 232, 718 N.E.2d 1285 (court 
of appeals properly dismissed complaint for writ of prohibition to prevent trial 
court judge from proceeding with sexual predator classification hearing because 
relator could appeal issue concerning statutory prerequisite of ODRC 
recommendation). 
{¶8} 
Based on the foregoing, Johnson’s prohibition claim was properly 
dismissed.  Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.1 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Robert L. Johnson, pro se. 
                                                 
1.  This renders moot Johnson’s request for a stay of Judge Marshall’s August 1, 2003 
classification order. 
January Term, 2004 
3 
 
Lynn Alan Grimshaw, Scioto County Prosecuting Attorney, and R. 
Randolph Rumble, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________