Title: State ex rel. Henry v. McMonagle

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Henry v. McMonagle, 87 Ohio St.3d 543, 2000-Ohio-477.] 
 
 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. HENRY, APPELLANT, v. MCMONAGLE, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Henry v. McMonagle (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 543.] 
Prohibition — Writ prohibiting judge of common pleas court from exercising 
judicial authority by accepting relator’s guilty plea and pronouncing 
sentence — Dismissal of complaint affirmed. 
(No. 99-1316 — Submitted November 16, 1999 – Decided January 19, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 75464. 
 
In June 1991, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted appellant, Toriano 
D. Henry, on one count of aggravated murder and one count of attempted murder.  
The aggravated murder charge included a mass-murder death-penalty specification 
and a firearm specification, and the attempted murder charge included a firearm 
specification. 
 
In September 1991, the state amended the aggravated murder charge by 
deleting the death-penalty and firearm specifications, and Henry pled guilty to the 
amended aggravated murder charge and the attempted murder count and 
accompanying firearm specification as charged in the indictment.  Appellee, 
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Richard J. McMonagle, accepted 
Henry’s guilty plea and sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of twenty years 
to life for aggravated murder and five to twenty-five years plus three years of 
actual incarceration for attempted murder and the accompanying firearm 
specification. 
 
In 1998, Henry filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition to vacate his 
conviction and sentence.  Henry claimed that Judge McMonagle failed to comply 
with the requirement of R.C. 2945.06 that a three-judge panel examine the 
witnesses and determine whether the accused is guilty of aggravated murder or any 
other offense punishable with death if the accused pleads guilty to aggravated 
 
2 
murder.  Judge McMonagle filed a motion to dismiss Henry’s complaint.  
Thereafter, the court of appeals granted Judge McMonagle’s motion and dismissed 
the cause. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Toriano D. Henry, pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sherry F. 
McCreary, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Henry asserts that the court of appeals erred in refusing to 
grant his requested writ of prohibition.  In order to be entitled to a writ of 
prohibition, Henry must establish that (1) Judge McMonagle is about to exercise 
judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is unauthorized by 
law, and (3) denial of the writ will cause injury for which no other adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of law exists.  McAuley v. Smith (1998), 82 Ohio 
St.3d 393, 395, 696 N.E.2d 572, 574.  Here, Judge McMonagle exercised judicial 
authority by accepting Henry’s guilty plea and sentencing him.  At issue is whether 
Judge McMonagle’s exercise of that power was unauthorized and caused Henry 
injury that was not reparable by any other legal remedy. 
 
We find that Judge McMonagle did not patently and unambiguously lack 
jurisdiction to accept Henry’s guilty plea and pronounce sentence.  Henry had an 
adequate legal remedy by appeal from Judge McMonagle’s sentence to raise his 
claim. 
 
R.C. 2945.06 does not require an examination of witnesses, determination of 
guilt, and pronouncement of sentence by a three-judge court if the accused is not 
charged with an offense punishable by death.  Ullman v. Seiter (1985), 18 Ohio 
St.3d 59, 18 OBR 92, 479 N.E.2d 875.  In this regard, R.C. 2945.06 must be 
 
3 
construed in pari materia with Crim.R. 11(C).  State v. Green (1998), 81 Ohio 
St.3d 100, 104, 689 N.E.2d 556, 559.  At the time Henry pled guilty, his indictment 
had been amended to delete any death-penalty specification.  Therefore, neither 
R.C. 2945.06 nor Crim.R. 11(C) required an examination and determination by a 
three-judge panel because Henry was no longer charged with an offense punishable 
by death at the time he entered his guilty plea.  See Crim.R. 11(C)(4); Ullman, 18 
Ohio St.3d at 60, 18 OBR at 93, 479 N.E.2d at 876. 
 
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.