Title: Kirklin v. Enlow

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Kirklin v. Enlow, 89 Ohio St.3d 455, 2000-Ohio-217.] 
 
 
 
 
 
KIRKLIN, APPELLANT, v. ENLOW, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Kirklin v. Enlow (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 455.] 
Prohibition — Writ sought to compel judge of common pleas court to vacate 
relator’s convictions and sentence — Dismissal of complaint by court of 
appeals affirmed. 
(No. 00-280 — Submitted May 23, 2000 — Decided August 16, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Portage County, No. 99-P-0097. 
 
In April 1989, the Portage County Court of Common Pleas convicted 
appellant, Delmar V. Kirklin, of aggravated murder, kidnapping, and various 
specifications, and sentenced him to life in prison and additional prison terms to be 
served consecutively to the life sentence.  Judge George E. Martin presided over 
Kirklin’s trial.  Kirklin had pled guilty to the offenses and specifications after 
being informed that he would receive a maximum term of life imprisonment for the 
aggravated murder charge. 
 
In October 1999, Kirklin filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for 
Portage County for a writ of prohibition to compel Judge Martin to vacate his 
convictions and sentence.  Kirklin claimed that Judge Martin violated R.C. 2945.06 
by not trying the case before a three-judge panel.  Appellee, Judge John A. Enlow, 
 
 
2
the successor to Judge Martin, filed a motion to dismiss.  The court of appeals 
granted Judge Enlow’s motion and dismissed the complaint. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Delmar V. Kirklin, pro se. 
 
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kelli K. 
Norman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Kirklin asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his 
prohibition action because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict and 
sentence him after it failed to comply with R.C. 2945.06.  For the following 
reasons, Kirklin’s claim lacks merit. 
 
An alleged violation of R.C. 2945.06 is not cognizable in an extraordinary 
writ action and may be remedied only in a direct appeal from a criminal 
conviction.  State ex rel. Collins v. Leonard (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 477, 478, 687 
N.E.2d 443, 443-444; Jackson v. Rose (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 51, 679 N.E.2d 684; 
State v. Pless (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 333, 658 N.E.2d 766, paragraph two of the 
syllabus. 
 
In addition, habeas corpus, rather than prohibition, is the appropriate remedy 
for persons claiming entitlement to release from prison.  State ex rel. Jackson v. 
 
 
3
Callahan (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 73, 711 N.E.2d 686.  Consequently, Kirklin is not 
entitled to a writ of prohibition to achieve the same result. 
 
Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals did not err in dismissing 
Kirklin’s prohibition complaint.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court 
of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.