Title: State ex rel. Smith v. Triggs

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. Smith v. Triggs, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3098.] 
 
 
 
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-3098 
THE STATE EX REL. SMITH, APPELLANT, v. TRIGGS, JUDGE, ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Smith v. Triggs, Slip Opinion No.  
2023-Ohio-3098.] 
Prohibition—Appellant had adequate remedy in ordinary course of law, and trial 
court did not patently and unambiguously lack subject-matter jurisdiction 
over appellant’s criminal case—Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing 
appellant’s petition affirmed. 
(No. 2022-1632—Submitted May 16, 2023—Decided September 6, 2023.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-220498. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Maurice Smith, filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in 
the First District Court of Appeals against appellees, Hamilton County Court of 
Common Pleas Judges Alan Triggs and Robert Ruehlman and visiting judge Mark 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2 
Schweikert (“the judges”).  Smith sought a writ of prohibition to vacate his 
conviction and sentence in a criminal case.  The court of appeals granted the judges’ 
motion to dismiss Smith’s petition.  We affirm the First District’s judgment. 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} In October 2022, Smith filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in the 
First District.  Smith’s petition stated that he was convicted of and sentenced for 
felony offenses in State v. Smith, Hamilton C.P. No. B1506673.  He claimed that 
his criminal case was originally assigned to Judge Ruehlman, who transferred the 
trial and sentencing proceedings in the case to visiting Judge Schweikert, and that 
Judge Schweikert then conducted the trial and sentencing.  Smith’s petition further 
alleged that in 2021, he filed a motion to vacate the sentence, arguing that Judge 
Ruehlman’s transfer violated the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio 
and the trial court’s local rules.  According to Smith, Judge Triggs denied Smith’s 
motion to vacate his sentence. 
{¶ 3} Smith’s 2022 petition sought a writ of prohibition to (1) “prohibit and 
vacate” the transfer of his criminal case from Judge Ruehlman to Judge Schweikert, 
(2) “prohibit and vacate” the jury trial and sentencing conducted by Judge 
Schweikert, and (3) “prohibit and vacate” Judge Triggs’s denial of his motion to 
vacate the sentence. 
{¶ 4} The judges filed a motion to dismiss Smith’s petition, which the First 
District granted.  Smith appealed to this court as of right. 
ANALYSIS 
{¶ 5} To be entitled to a writ of prohibition, Smith must show by clear and 
convincing evidence that (1) the judges exercised judicial power, (2) the exercise 
of that power was unauthorized by law, and (3) denying the writ would result in 
injury for which no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of the law.  
See State ex rel. Reynolds v. Kirby, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-782, __ N.E.3d 
__, ¶ 9.  If the trial judges patently and unambiguously lacked subject-matter 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
3 
jurisdiction over his criminal case, Smith need not establish the lack of an adequate 
remedy.  See Schlegel v. Sweeney, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-3841, __ N.E.3d 
__, ¶ 6.  This court will affirm a court of appeals’ dismissal of a writ petition for 
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted “ ‘if, after presuming the 
truth of all factual allegations of the complaint and making all reasonable inferences 
in [the relator’s] favor, it appears beyond doubt that he can prove no set of facts 
entitling him to the requested extraordinary writ of prohibition.’ ”  (Brackets added 
in Nyamusevya.)  State ex rel. Nyamusevya v. Hawkins, 165 Ohio St.3d 22, 2021-
Ohio-1122, 175 N.E.3d 495, ¶ 14, quoting State ex rel. Hemsley v. Unruh, 128 Ohio 
St.3d 307, 2011-Ohio-226, 943 N.E.2d 1014, ¶ 8. 
{¶ 6} Smith’s petition alleged that his trial and sentencing were 
unauthorized by law because the transfer of his case from Judge Ruehlman to Judge 
Schweikert violated the Rules of Superintendence and the local rules of the 
Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas.  Those allegations sufficiently pled that 
Judge Ruehlman and Judge Schweikert had exercised judicial power and that the 
exercise of that power was unauthorized by law. 
{¶ 7} However, Smith’s petition failed to show that he had no adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  Smith could have raised any issue 
regarding the transfer of his criminal case from Judge Ruehlman to Judge 
Schweikert in a direct appeal, which constitutes an adequate remedy in the ordinary 
course of the law.  See State ex rel. Key v. Spicer, 91 Ohio St.3d 469, 469, 746 
N.E.2d 1119 (2001) (a “claim of improper assignment of a judge can generally be 
adequately raised by way of appeal”); State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio 
St.3d 28, 29-30, 451 N.E.2d 225 (1983) (prohibition is not a substitute for an appeal 
to contest alleged improper assignment of judge). 
{¶ 8} Nor can Smith show that the trial court patently and unambiguously 
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his criminal case.  The Hamilton County 
Court of Common Pleas has subject-matter jurisdiction over felony cases, see Smith 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4 
v. Sheldon, 157 Ohio St.3d 1, 2019-Ohio-1677, 131 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 8, and when we 
have found that “a court of common pleas patently and unambiguously 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.  Any procedural irregularity in the transfer 
of Smith’s case to a visiting judge would at most affect the court’s exercise of 
jurisdiction over his particular case—it would not result in the court patently and 
unambiguously losing subject-matter jurisdiction.  See In re J.J., 111 Ohio St.3d 
205, 2006-Ohio-5484, 855 N.E.2d 851, paragraph one of the syllabus (“In a court 
that possesses subject-matter jurisdiction, procedural irregularities in the transfer of 
a case to a visiting judge affect the court’s jurisdiction over the particular case and 
render the judgment voidable, not void”); see also Key at 469 (“No patent and 
unambiguous lack of jurisdiction [was] evident” despite petitioner’s “claim of 
improper assignment of a judge”). 
{¶ 9} Smith also sought a writ of prohibition to “prohibit and vacate” Judge 
Triggs’s ruling denying Smith’s 2021 motion to vacate his sentence.  Smith is not 
entitled to such a writ.  Smith had the opportunity to file a direct appeal from that 
ruling, see State ex rel. Williams v. Sutula, 147 Ohio St.3d 472, 2016-Ohio-7453, 
67 N.E.3d 763, ¶ 5, and he does not argue that the trial court lacked subject-matter 
jurisdiction to issue it. 
{¶ 10} Finally, Smith argues as a proposition of law before this court that 
the First District misapplied the doctrine of res judicata.  But the First District did 
not mention or rely on res judicata in its dismissal of Smith’s petition for a writ of 
prohibition, and accordingly, we reject this claim. 
CONCLUSION 
{¶ 11} For the reasons stated above, Smith has not shown by clear and 
convincing evidence that he is entitled to a writ of prohibition vacating his 
conviction and sentence or vacating the trial court’s decision denying his motion to 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
5 
vacate his sentence.  Smith had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the 
law, and the trial court did not patently and unambiguously lack subject-matter 
jurisdiction.  We therefore affirm the First District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of 
Smith’s petition. 
Judgment affirmed. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and BRUNNER, JJ., 
concur. 
FISCHER and DETERS, JJ., not participating. 
_________________ 
George A. Katchmer, for appellant. 
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip R. 
Cummings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________