COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70611 : ORIGINAL ACTION STATE OF OHIO EX REL., : MOSES E. JONES III : : JOURNAL ENTRY Relator : : and -vs- : : OPINION GARFIELD HEIGHTS MUNICIPAL COURT : : : Respondent : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: MAY 14, 1996 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: WRIT OF PROHIBITION JUDGMENT: WRIT DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: For Relator: For Respondent: RICHARD S. KOBLENTZ, ESQ. DAVID E.MACK, ESQ. CRAIG J. MORICE, ESQ. Law Director KOBLENTZ & KOBLENTZ City of Garfield Heights 75 Public Square 5555 Turney Road Suite 1025 Garfield Heights, Ohio 44125 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 2 - KARPINSKI, P.J.: Relator avers that he is the defendant in Maple Hts. v. Jones, Garfield Heights Municipal Court Case No. 96-243. Relator further avers that he has been charged with theft of property valued at less than three hundred dollars, a misdemeanor of the first degree pursuant to R.C. 2913.02. Relator contends, however, that he should have been charged with theft of property valued at more than three hundred dollars, for which the appropriate charge would be a felony of the fourth degree. As a consequence, relator asserts that respondent municipal court lacks jurisdiction to hear the charge against him. Relator indicates that respondent has denied his motion to transfer Case No. 96-243 to the court of common pleas. Relator requests that this court issue a writ of prohibition *** permanently enjoining and prohibiting [respondent] from entertaining jurisdiction in said action and from further proceeding therein, and that a temporary restraining order issue against [respondent] from proceeding with such action until final disposition of this proceeding. Complaint, ad damnum clause. In paragraph 6 of the complaint, relator indicates that Case No. 96-243 is scheduled for trial on May 21, 1996. Relator filed a separate application for alternative writ (Motion No. 72799) on May 8, 1996 in which he requests that this court grant an alternative writ to prevent the trial from going forward on May 21. By separate entry, we have denied relator's application for alternative writ (Motion No. 77299). - 3 - We also dismiss this action sua sponte for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. While sua sponte dismissal of a complaint without notice is generally inappropriate, it is proper where the complaint is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint. See State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 106, 108, 647 N.E.2d 799, 801, citing Baker v. Dir., U.S. Parole Comm. (C.A.D.C.1990), 916 F.2d 725, and English v. Cowell (C.A.7, 1993), 10 F.3d 434. State ex rel. Peeples v. Anderson (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 559, 560, 653 N.E.2d 371. Relief in prohibition is available only in limited circumstances. "The conditions which must exist to support the issuance of a writ of prohibition are: (1) The court or officer against whom it is sought must be about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power must be unauthorized by law; and (3) it must appear that the refusal of the writ would result in injury for which there is no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law." State, ex rel. McKee, v. Cooper (1974), 40 Ohio St. 2d 65, paragraph one of the syllabus. Bobb v. Marchant (1984), 14 Ohio St. 3d 1, 3, 14 OBR 1, 469 N.E. 2d 847. Under some circumstances, however, a party relator in an action in prohibition need not meet all three of these criteria. Ordinarily, all three prerequisites must be present before a claim in prohibition has been stated. State, ex rel. Dayton, v. Kerns (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 295, 297 3 O.O. 3d 441, 443, 361 N.E.2d 247, 249. However, we have held that "[i]f an inferior court is without jurisdiction whatsoever to act, the availability or adequacy of a remedy of appeal to prevent the resulting injustice is immaterial to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by a superior court to prevent usurpation of jurisdiction by the inferior court." State, ex rel. Adams, v. Gusweiler - 4 - (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 326, 329, 59 O.O. 2d 387, 388, 285 N.E.2d 22, 24; Johnson, v. Perry County Court (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 53, 58, 25 OBR 77, 81, 495 N.E.2d 16, 21. But before we will exercise our jurisdiction to issue the writ in such instance, there must be a patent and unambigous [sic] lack of jurisdiction of the inferior court which clearly places the dispute outside the court's authority. State, ex rel. Smith, v. Court (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d, 213, 215-216, 24 O.O. 3d 320, 321, 436 N.E.2d 1005, 1007, citing State, ex rel. Gilla, v. Fellerhoff (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 86, 88, 73 O.O. 2d 328, 329, 338 N.E.2d 522, 523. Thus, where this showing has not been made, the availability of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law precludes the issuance of the writ of prohibition. Tilford v. Crush (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 174, 176, 529 N.E.2d 1245. Relator avers that the charge pending before respondent court is a misdemeanor. Relator does not dispute that respondent has jurisdiction over misdemeanor cases. See R.C. 1901.20; Crim.R. 7(A). Respondent is not, therefore, patently and unambiguously without jurisdiction to hear the misdemeanor charge against relator. "[U]nless a lower court unambiguously lacks jurisdiction to proceed, a court having general jurisdiction of the subject matter has the authority to determine its own jurisdiction and an adequate remedy at law via appeal exists to challenge any adverse decision." Badger v. Flanagan (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 173, 176, 652 N.E.2d 258 (citations deleted). On the face of the complaint, therefore, it is evident that relator is unable to meet two of the criteria for relief in prohibition. Inter alia, relator argued before respondent that the prosecution was forum shopping by charging relator with a misdemeanor. Complaint, Exh. B (Hearing Transcript), at 3. - 5 - Relator could, however, raise this issue on appeal as part of his challenge to respondent's jurisdiction. Furthermore, relator failed to comply with Loc. App. R. 8(B)(1) which requires that complaints in original actions "be supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff or relator specifying the details of the claim." Accordingly, relator's complaint in prohibition is dismissed sua sponte. Relator to pay costs. Writ dismissed. NAHRA, J., and McMONAGLE, J., CONCUR. DIANE KARPINSKI PRESIDING JUDGE .