Summary
The Eleventh District Court of Appeals of Ohio dismissed Joseph A. Sands’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to invalidate his criminal conviction based on alleged perjured testimony. The court held that the availability of a direct appeal constituted a plain and adequate remedy at law, even though Sands had pursued his appeals unsuccessfully. The court therefore granted Judge Vincent A. Culotta’s motion to dismiss.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether mandamus was available to compel the common pleas court judge to dismiss Sands's criminal conviction as void based on alleged perjured testimony.
- Whether Sands had a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law through the appellate process, despite the fact that his prior appeal was unsuccessful.
Holdings
- Mandamus must be dismissed when the relator has a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by appeal; the availability of an appeal, rather than its exhaustion or success, precludes mandamus.
- The petition was subject to dismissal because its allegations demonstrated that Sands had an adequate appellate remedy and therefore could not establish entitlement to mandamus relief.
Key quotations
“The writ of mandamus must not be issued when there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” (¶ 5)
“It is the availability of the process, not its exhaustion, that precludes this court from exercising its jurisdiction.” (¶ 7)
Factual background
Sands was convicted in Lake County Common Pleas Case No. 06CR000401. He alleged that the conviction was obtained through perjured testimony by the state's key witness and therefore was void. After the trial court denied his motion challenging jurisdiction and the Eleventh District and Ohio Supreme Court declined to grant relief, Sands sought mandamus to compel the trial judge to dismiss the conviction.
Procedural history
Sands petitioned the court of appeals for a writ commanding the common pleas court judge to dismiss his criminal judgment of conviction as void because it allegedly rested on perjured testimony. The trial court denied Sands's jurisdictional motion, and Sands pursued an unsuccessful appeal to the Eleventh District and then sought discretionary review in the Ohio Supreme Court, which declined jurisdiction. The court of appeals granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the mandamus petition.