Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the dismissal of Tracee Steele’s petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition against a Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court judge. The court held that the existence of a second indictment constituted good cause to dismiss the first indictment under R.C. 2941.33, and that Steele had an adequate remedy through ordinary legal proceedings and appeal. The court also concluded that an incorrect case number used in the hearing was inconsequential and that Steele waived his argument concerning the prosecutor’s authority to seek the second indictment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the existence of a second indictment constituted good cause under R.C. 2941.33 to dismiss the first indictment.
- Whether the mistaken case number initially stated by the prosecutor and trial judge rendered the dismissal of the first indictment invalid.
- Whether mandamus or prohibition was available when Steele had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
- Whether the prosecutor was required to obtain leave of court before seeking the second indictment.
- Whether Steele waived his claim concerning the lack of leave by failing to raise it in his petition.
Holdings
- The existence of the second indictment, which changed two counts from gross sexual imposition to rape, constituted good cause under R.C. 2941.33 to dismiss the first indictment.
- The prosecutor's and trial judge's initial misidentification of the case number did not invalidate the dismissal because the hearing transcript made clear which indictment was being dismissed and the error was inconsequential.
- Steele was not entitled to mandamus or prohibition because he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, including moving to dismiss the second indictment and appealing any adverse ruling after the criminal case concluded.
- A prosecutor is not required to obtain leave of court before seeking an indictment because the decision whether to seek an indictment is within the prosecutor's discretion.
- Steele waived his claim that the second indictment was sought without leave of court by failing to raise that claim in his petition.
Key quotations
“Absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, neither mandamus nor prohibition will lie if the relator has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” (¶ 9)
“The availability of an appeal is an adequate remedy sufficient to preclude a writ” (¶ 9)
Factual background
In 2006, Steele was charged in a first indictment with multiple counts of gross sexual imposition and kidnapping. Before trial, the prosecutor sought dismissal of that indictment because a second indictment had been filed, substituting rape charges for two counts of gross sexual imposition; Steele later pleaded guilty to five counts of gross sexual imposition and received a 15-year prison sentence. In 2017, Steele challenged the dismissal of the first indictment, asserting that the trial court had not found good cause under R.C. 2941.33 and that the prosecutor and judge initially misstated the case number at the dismissal hearing.
Procedural history
Steele sought mandamus and prohibition in the Eighth District Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court improperly dismissed the first indictment and asking that the dismissal entry be vacated as void. The court of appeals granted Judge McClelland's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the petition, concluding that the dismissal was proper and that Steele had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.