Title: State ex rel. Justice v. State

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. Justice v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-760.] 
 
 
 
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. 2023-OHIO-760 
THE STATE EX REL. JUSTICE, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Justice v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-760.] 
Prohibition—Appellant failed to identify any statute in support of claim that trial 
court lost jurisdiction over her criminal case—Court of appeals’ dismissal 
of action for failure to state a claim within its jurisdiction affirmed. 
(No. 2022-0811—Submitted January 10, 2023—Decided March 15, 2023.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 22AP-53. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Monica R-Lotus Justice, appeals the dismissal of an 
original action she filed in the Tenth District Court of Appeals.  We affirm. 
Background 
{¶ 2} In January 2022, Justice filed an original action in the Tenth District 
captioned “Petition for discharge for want of jurisdiction, judicial misconduct, and 
abuse of discretion, obstructions to justice, prosecutorial misconduct & perjury, & 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
Brady rule violations, etc., effected pre-trial by respondents.”  The complaint named 
the state of Ohio, the Bureau of Criminal Investigation, Franklin County Common 
Pleas Court Judge David Young (“the trial court”), and Franklin County Assistant 
Prosecuting Attorney Marla Farbacher as respondents.  Justice designated her 
complaint as an “appeal” from Franklin C.P. case No. 20-CR-03470.1 
{¶ 3} In her complaint, Justice alleged that her speedy-trial rights had been 
violated, that the trial court had abused its discretion in various pretrial rulings, and 
that the prosecution had withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. 
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).  Based on these 
allegations, Justice alleged a conspiracy to violate her constitutional rights and 
demanded a “discharge” of the criminal case against her. 
{¶ 4} The Tenth District dismissed the complaint.  The court determined that 
Justice’s pleading was “not sufficient to state a claim for any of the five writs over 
which th[e] court has original jurisdiction, nor does it constitute a valid notice of 
appeal under App.R. 3.” 
{¶ 5} Thereafter, Justice filed a notice of appeal “by right” in this court, citing 
“S.Ct.Prac.R. 6.”  She later filed a “notice of joinder,” purporting to unilaterally 
consolidate this case with 2022-0840, State v. Justice, a discretionary appeal, but on 
August 30, 2022, we declined jurisdiction in that case, 167 Ohio St.3d 1499, 2022-
Ohio-2953, 193 N.E.3d 586. 
Legal analysis 
{¶ 6} Justice’s reference to Section 6 of this court’s Rules of Practice and 
Procedure in her notice of appeal indicates that she is not attempting to appeal any 
ruling of the trial court.  Rather, she appears to be appealing from the Tenth District’s 
dismissal of the original action she brought in that court.  See S.Ct.Prac.R. 5.01(A) 
 
1. According to the clerk of courts’ website, Justice is charged in case No. 20-CR-03470 with four 
counts of felonious assault and two counts of having a weapon while under a disability. 
January Term, 2023 
 
3 
and 6.01(A).  However, Justice’s complaint did not clearly identify the extraordinary 
writ she seeks, and neither does the merit brief she filed in this court. 
{¶ 7} It is readily apparent, however, that Justice is not seeking relief in 
mandamus or habeas corpus.  To state a claim for a writ of mandamus, a relator 
must allege a clear legal right to relief, a clear legal duty on the part of the 
respondent to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course 
of law.  State ex rel. Romine v. McIntosh, 162 Ohio St.3d 501, 2020-Ohio-6826, 
165 N.E.3d 1262, ¶ 10.  And habeas corpus will lie only if the petitioner is entitled 
to immediate release from confinement.  Scarberry v. Turner, 139 Ohio St.3d 111, 
2014-Ohio-1587, 9 N.E.3d 1022, ¶ 14.  Because Justice has not articulated a clear 
legal right or legal duty and has not alleged a right to immediate release, we infer 
that she is not seeking relief in mandamus or habeas corpus. 
{¶ 8} Justice’s merit brief, which presents seven propositions of law, 
primarily offers reasons why the trial court supposedly lost jurisdiction over her 
criminal case.  For example, she asserts that the trial court erroneously treated her 
demurrer to the charges as a motion that tolled the speedy-trial clock.  Given that 
she repeatedly purports to challenge the trial court’s jurisdiction, it appears that 
Justice is seeking a writ of prohibition to bar further proceedings in Franklin C.P. 
case No. 20-CR-03470. 
{¶ 9} To state a claim for a writ of prohibition, a relator must allege the 
exercise of judicial power, the lack of authority for the exercise of that power, and 
the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  State ex rel. Elder v. 
Camplese, 144 Ohio St.3d 89, 2015-Ohio-3628, 40 N.E.3d 1138, ¶ 13.  However, 
if jurisdiction is patently and unambiguously absent, the relator need not establish 
the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Sapp 
v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals, 118 Ohio St.3d 368, 2008-Ohio-2637, 889 
N.E.2d 500, ¶ 15.  We review de novo a court of appeals’ dismissal of a complaint 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
for extraordinary-writ relief.  State ex rel. M.D. v. Kelsey, 168 Ohio St.3d 679, 
2022-Ohio-2556, 200 N.E.3d 1114, ¶ 10. 
{¶ 10} When we have found that a common pleas court lacks jurisdiction, 
“it is almost always because a statute explicitly removed that jurisdiction.”  Ohio 
High School Athletic Assn. v. Ruehlman, 157 Ohio St.3d 296, 2019-Ohio-2845, 136 
N.E.3d 436, ¶ 9.  Justice does not identify any such statute and has failed to show 
that the trial court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction over her criminal 
case.  To the extent that Justice alleges trial-court errors or violations committed by 
the prosecution, such claims may be asserted on direct appeal from a final order 
entered by the trial court in her criminal case.  For example, speedy-trial claims are 
not cognizable in a prohibition action or any other extraordinary-writ proceeding.  
State ex rel. Jackim v. Ambrose, 118 Ohio St.3d 512, 2008-Ohio-3182, 890 N.E.2d 
324, ¶ 6 (collecting cases).  Likewise, prosecutorial misconduct and erroneous 
pretrial decisions do not deprive a trial court of jurisdiction, and such claims are not 
cognizable in prohibition.  See, e.g., Russell v. Duffy, 142 Ohio St.3d 320, 2015-
Ohio-1358, 29 N.E.3d 978, ¶ 9-10 (appeal is an adequate legal remedy for 
prosecutorial misconduct); State ex rel. Herdman v. Watson, 83 Ohio St.3d 537, 
539, 700 N.E.2d 1270 (1998) (holding that an appeal following the entry of a final, 
appealable order constitutes an adequate legal remedy to resolve any alleged error 
by the trial court in its pretrial discovery orders). 
{¶ 11} The Tenth District correctly dismissed Justice’s complaint for failure 
to state a claim within the jurisdiction of the court of appeals.  We affirm. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 12} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the Tenth District 
Court of Appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, 
and DETERS, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2023 
 
5 
_________________ 
Monica R-Lotus Justice, pro se. 
G. Gary Tyack, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nickole K. Iula, 
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees Judge David Young and Marla 
Farbacher. 
G. Gary Tyack, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Taylor M. 
Mick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee state of Ohio. 
_________________