[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

ex rel. Martin v. Buchanan, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-9163.] 

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. 2017-OHIO-9163

[THE STATE EX REL.] MARTIN, APPELLANT, v. BUCHANAN, JUDGE, ET AL.,

APPELLEES. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State ex rel. Martin v. Buchanan, Slip Opinion No. 

2017-Ohio-9163.] 

Mandamus—Prohibition—Mandamus petition denied as moot―Judgment sought 

by petitioner has already been entered—Prohibition petition against clerk 

of courts denied—Prohibition does not lie when action sought to be 

prohibited is neither judicial nor quasi-judicial. 

(No. 2017-0234—Submitted June 20, 2017—Decided December 27, 2017.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 105063, 

2017-Ohio-301. 

________________ 

 Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Appellant, Tramaine E. Martin, appeals the judgment of the Eighth 

District Court of Appeals denying his petition for writs of mandamus and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

prohibition. We deny Martin’s pending motion to proceed to judgment, and we 

affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 

{¶ 2} Martin was convicted in Cleveland Heights Municipal Court of six 

counts of receiving stolen property as well as of other charges. Cleveland Hts, v. 

Martin, case Nos. CRB1301152(A through I). He appealed. On April 3, 2014, the 

Eighth District Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable 

order. Cleveland Hts. v. Martin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. CA-13-100682 (Apr. 3, 

2014).

{¶ 3} On October 12, 2016, Martin filed a petition for a writ of mandamus 

in the Eighth District Court of Appeals to compel appellee Judge A. Deane 

Buchanan to issue a final, appealable order in his criminal case. The court of 

appeals denied the petition, holding that mandamus was unavailable because Judge 

Buchanan had set the matter for a hearing to address the finality of the judgment of 

conviction and thus Martin had an adequate remedy at law. 2017-Ohio-301, ¶ 6. 

{¶ 4} Alternatively, Martin’s petition sought a writ of prohibition against 

appellee Cleveland Heights clerk of courts. He alleged that a third party had posted 

bail on his behalf in an unrelated case, Cleveland Hts. v. Martin, case No. 

CRB1600519, and that the clerk had fraudulently applied those sums to the fines 

and costs assessed against him in case No. CRB1301152A. The court of appeals 

denied this writ as well, on the grounds that the depositor had consented to the 

disposition of the funds. 2017-Ohio-301, ¶ 7.

{¶ 5} Martin appealed. But on April 28, 2017, while this appeal was 

pending, Judge Buchanan issued a new judgment entry in Martin’s case.1

 Martin’s 

mandamus petition is therefore moot and is denied on that basis. State ex rel. 

 

1

 The Cleveland Heights Municipal Court docket can be accessed at 

http://search.clevelandheightscourt.com/recordSearch.php?k=docket18236nxvaInUEWdW9zvqvy

oMRFmKnSR81pSOInRkP98p53127849774220612402752525706010594508584406285986376

749213488939558830912534388
January Term, 2017 

3

Eubank v. McDonald, 135 Ohio St.3d 186, 2013-Ohio-72, 985 N.E.2d 463, ¶ 1 

(“Mandamus will not lie to compel an act that has already been performed”).

{¶ 6} There are three elements necessary for a writ of prohibition to issue: 

the exercise of judicial power, the lack of authority to exercise 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. But the 

clerk’s action did not constitute the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial authority. 

See State ex rel. Dayton Law Library Assn. v. White, 163 Ohio App.3d 118, 2005-

Ohio-4520, 836 N.E.2d 1232, ¶ 25 (holding that the billing and attempted collection 

of costs by a municipal-court clerk did not constitute the exercise of judicial or 

quasi-judicial authority). 

{¶ 7} On July 24, 2017, while this case was pending, Martin filed a “Motion 

to proceed to judgment.” That motion is now moot and is therefore denied. 

Judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER,

and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

Tramaine E. Martin, pro se. 

L. James Juliano Jr., Cleveland Heights Director of Law, and Tiffany Hill, 

Assistant Director of Law, for appellees. 

_________________