Title: State ex rel. Keith v. Gaul

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. Keith v. Gaul, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5566.] 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-5566 
THE STATE EX REL. KEITH, APPELLANT, v. GAUL, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Keith v. Gaul, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5566.] 
Writ of mandamus—Ruling sought on motion for leave to file a delayed motion for 
new trial—Mandamus will not issue to compel a vain act—Judgment 
affirmed. 
(No. 2015-1483—Submitted April 5, 2016—Decided August 30, 2016.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 102875,  
2015-Ohio-3480. 
_____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals that denied the petition 
for a writ of mandamus filed by appellant, Jeffrey Keith. Keith filed numerous 
motions for a new trial in various criminal proceedings in which he was a defendant.  
After a long procedural history, in 2015, Keith petitioned the Cuyahoga County 
Court of Appeals to order the original judge on his case, Judge Daniel Gaul, to rule 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
on Keith’s 2002 motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial.  Judge 
Gaul had been assigned to the case when Keith filed this petition.  The court of 
appeals granted the motion for summary judgment of Judge Joseph D. Russo, who 
is now assigned to the case, holding that the issues asserted in Keith’s motion for 
leave to file a delayed motion for new trial had already been decided, and thus, 
granting the motion would be a vain act. 
{¶ 2} We affirm and, as we have already denied jurisdiction in Supreme 
Court case No. 2015-1414, his motion to consolidate this case with that one is 
denied as moot. 
Facts 
{¶ 3} Keith was found guilty of arson and grand theft in 1995 in Cuyahoga 
Court of Common Pleas case No. CR-316724, presided over by appellee Judge 
Gaul.  Judge Gaul sentenced Keith to 15 to 25 years’ imprisonment.  In July 1995, 
Keith filed a notice of appeal with the Eighth District Court of Appeals. In April 
1996, while the appeal was pending, an entry was journalized in the common pleas 
court indicating that the Supreme Court of Ohio had assigned Judge Joseph 
Cirigliano to handle this case.  The entry was erroneous, as the Supreme Court had 
made no such assignment.  On October 28, 1996, a correction was docketed: “The 
above case CR 316724 was heard and disposed of by Judge Daniel Gaul.  This case 
should not have been assigned to Judge Joseph E. Cirigliano.” The next year, 
Keith’s convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal.  State v. Keith, 8th Dist. 
Cuyahoga No. 69267, 1997 WL 113755 (Mar. 13, 1997). 
{¶ 4} Case No. CR-316724 was one of three criminal cases in which Keith 
had been found guilty and sentenced to prison.  Judge Joseph Cirigliano had 
presided over the other two.  See State v. Keith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 72275, 
1998 WL 742172  (Oct. 22, 1998), and  State v. Keith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 
76469, 76479, and 76610, 2000 WL 1176886 (Aug. 17, 2000). 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
{¶ 5} In January 2002, Keith moved for leave to file a delayed motion for a 
new trial in case No. CR-316724.  Keith supported his motion by attaching news 
articles and affidavits. Keith alleged corruption in Cuyahoga County and illegal 
judge shopping.  The state moved to dismiss Keith’s motion. 
{¶ 6} Judge Cirigliano granted the state’s motion to dismiss.  Keith 
appealed.  From April 2002 through December 26, 2002, while his appeal was 
pending, Keith filed numerous pro se motions in the trial court in this case, seeking 
a new trial, appointment of a new judge, and other relief, often based on the same 
arguments made in the January 2002 motion.  In December 2002, the court of 
appeals dismissed Keith’s appeal from Judge Cirigliano’s judgment, holding that 
Judge Cirigliano had had no authority to issue an order in the case, because he had 
not been assigned to it.  State v. Keith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 81125, 2002-Ohio-
7250, ¶ 4, 8. 
{¶ 7} Judge Russo was assigned the case in October 2006.  In 2008, Keith 
filed motions for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial and for other relief.  
All motions were denied. 
{¶ 8} In particular, the court of appeals dismissed Keith’s appeal on a 2008 
motion.  State v. Keith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga, Nos. 102106, 102017, 102108, 2015-
Ohio-2401, 2015 WL 3819502 (June 18, 2015), stating that Keith had exhausted 
all appeals, and his “subsequent assertions of claims against valid final judgments 
of convictions involve issues that have been, could have been, or should have been 
raised on appeal and, therefore, are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.” Id. at  
¶ 21. 
{¶ 9} On April 10, 2015, Keith filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking 
the court of appeals to compel Judge Daniel Gaul to issue a ruling on his 2002 
motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial.  Judge Russo filed a motion 
for summary judgment.  The Eighth District granted Judge Russo’s motion. State 
ex rel. Keith v. Gaul, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga, No. 102875, 2015-Ohio-3480.  The court 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
of appeals held that issuing a writ ordering a ruling would be a vain act. “Because 
the issue of the denial of a delayed motion for new trial has been previously 
determined to be without merit in numerous appeals filed by Keith, we find that the 
doctrine of law of the case prevents further litigation of the issue.” Id. at ¶ 11. 
{¶ 10} Keith appealed to this court as of right. 
Analysis 
Motion to consolidate 
{¶ 11} Keith moved to consolidate this case with his appeal of the trial 
court’s denials of his motions to vacate void judgments.  We have already declined 
jurisdiction.  144 Ohio St.3d 1409, 2015-Ohio-4947, 41 N.E.3d 1409.  We therefore 
deny the motion as moot. 
Mandamus 
{¶ 12} To be entitled to extraordinary relief in mandamus, Keith must 
establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of 
Judge Russo1 to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary 
course of the law.  State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-
69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6.  Keith must prove that he is entitled to the writ by clear 
and convincing evidence.  Id. at ¶ 13. 
{¶ 13} The Court of Appeals properly dismissed Keith’s petition for a writ 
of mandamus.  The court of appeals has considered and dismissed Keith’s claim for 
a new trial on multiple occasions:   
 
 
“Simply put, Keith exhausted his direct appeal rights in Keith I, 
[State v. Keith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 69267, 1997 WL 113755 
(Mar. 13, 1997)] Keith II, [State v. Keith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 
                                          
 
1 Keith appears to believe that Judge Gaul is still assigned to his case and should respond to his 2002 
motion.  However, Judge Russo was properly assigned to the case in 2006.   
 
January Term, 2016 
 
5
72275, 1998 WL 742172 (Oct. 22, 1998)] and Keith III [State v. 
Keith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 76469, 76479, 76610, 2000 WL 
1176886 (Aug. 17, 2000)].  His subsequent assertions of claims 
against valid final judgments of convictions involve issues that have 
been, could have been, or should have been raised on appeal and, 
therefore, are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. State v. 
Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448, 2010–Ohio–3831, 935 N.E.2d 9, ¶ 59, 
citing State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (1967), 
paragraph nine of the syllabus.” 
 
State ex rel. Keith v. Gaul, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102875, 2015-Ohio-3480, ¶ 10, 
quoting State v. Keith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 102106, 102107, 102108, 2015-
Ohio-2401, ¶ 21. 
{¶ 14} The court of appeals correctly recognized that the claims put forth in 
Keith’s 2002 motion have been ruled on and found wanting.  2015-Ohio-3480,  
¶ 10, citing 2015-Ohio-2401, ¶ 21.  The doctrine of law of the case prevents any 
future court from deciding otherwise.  “ ‘[T]he doctrine [of the law-of-the-case] 
provides that the decision of a reviewing court in a case remains the law of that case 
on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case at both 
the trial and reviewing levels.’ ”  State ex rel. Cleveland v. Astrab, 139 Ohio St. 3d 
445, 2014-Ohio-2380, 12 N.E.3d 1197, ¶ 21, quoting Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 
1, 3–4, 462 N.E.2d 410 (1984).  “ ‘Where “a trial court is confronted with 
substantially the same facts and issues as were involved in the prior appeal, the 
court is bound to adhere to the appellate court’s determination of the applicable 
law. Moreover, the trial court is without authority to extend or vary the mandate 
given.’ ” Id. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
{¶ 15} Thus, if the court of appeals or this court issues a writ ordering Judge 
Russo to rule on Keith’s January 2002 motion, Judge Russo will be “bound to 
adhere to the appellate court’s determination” of the issues raised in that motion. 
{¶ 16} And because Judge Russo is so bound, ordering him to rule on the 
motion would be a vain act.  Mandamus will not issue to compel a vain act. State 
ex rel. Bona v. Orange, 85 Ohio St. 3d 18, 22, 706 N.E.2d 771(1999), citing State 
ex rel. Thomas v. Ghee, 81 Ohio St.3d 191, 192, 690 N.E.2d 6, (1998). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 17} Because a ruling on Keith’s 2002 motion would be constrained by 
the law-of-the-case doctrine, issuing a writ ordering such a ruling would be a vain 
act.  Mandamus will not issue to compel a vain act. 
{¶ 18} We therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.  We also 
deny the motion to consolidate. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Jeffrey Keith, pro se. 
Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James 
E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________