COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 71510 GERALD E. FUERST, CLERK OF COURTS STATE OF OHIO EX REL. ANTHONY : WHITE, : : PETITION FOR WRIT OF : PROHIBITION Relator : : CASE NO. 71510 v. : : MOTION NO. 78407 HONORABLE PETER J. JUNKIN, ET AL., : : : Respondents : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : DECEMBER 20, 1996 JUDGMENT : GRANTED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For relator: Bruce L. Mielziner Christina M. Janice KABAT, MIELZINER, SOBEL AND JANICE 25550 Chagrin Boulevard Suite 403 Beachwood, Ohio 44122 For respondents: Brian J. Melling Clarence B. Rader, III MELLING, MELLING & BELL 31 Columbus Road P.O. Box 46311 Bedford, Ohio 44146 -2- NAHRA, P.J.: Relator, Anthony White, seeks a writ of prohibition in order to prevent the respondents, the Bedford Municipal Court, the Honorable Peter J. Junkin, and the Honorable David E. Griffiths, from proceeding to trial in the underlying case of City of Bedford v. Anthony White, Bedford Municipal Court Case No. 96-CRV-00935. Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss. For the following reasons, we deny the respondents' motion to dismiss and issue a writ of prohibition on behalf of the relator. Relator was originally charged with the offense of domestic violence, a violation of R.C. 2919.25. On September 30, 1996, the relator appeared before respondent - Honorable David E. Griffiths at which time a plea of no-contest was entered to the amended offense of disorderly conduct. Following a hearing, the relator was found guilty of the offense of disorderly conduct and sentenced to serve ten (10) days in jail, suspended, in addition to a fine of $100.00 plus $83.55 in court costs. The judgment was duly recorded on the relator's case file jacket. See Exhibit "A". Following pronouncement of judgment and sentence, the relator immediately paid his fine plus court costs and was allowed to leave the Bedford Municipal Court. In addition, the judgment and sentence were duly posted to the computerized docket as currently utilized by the Bedford Municipal Court. See Exhibit "B". On October 1, 1996, respondent - Honorable David E. Griffiths sua -3- sponte issued an order which: 1) vacated the prior conviction for the offense of disorderly conduct; 2) vacated the sentence imposed upon the relator; 3) ordered all funds paid as either a fine or court costs returned to the relator; and 4) ordered a new trial, to be conducted on December 9, 1996, with regard to the reinstated offense of domestic violence. See Exhibit "C". Thereafter, the relator filed his complaint for a writ of prohibition. In order for this court to grant a writ of prohibition, the relator must ordinarily establish each prong of the following three-part test: 1) the respondent is about to exercise judicial authority; 2) the exercise of the judicial authority is not authorized by law; and 3) the relator possesses no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law if the writ of prohibition is denied. State ex rel. McKee v. Cooper (1974), 40 Ohio St.2d 65. The Supreme Court of Ohio, however, has established that when a trial court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction to consider a matter, a writ of prohibition will issue to prevent the assumption of jurisdiction regardless of the existence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Serv., Office of Collective Bargaining v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 48; State ex rel. Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Kornowski (1974), 40 Ohio St.2d 20; State ex rel. Tollis v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Appeals (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 145. -4- In the case sub judice, we find that the respondents patently and unambiguously lack the jurisdiction to conduct a trial with regard to the offense of domestic violence as reinstated against the relator on October 1, 1996. Respondent possessed no statutory authority to vacate the judgment and sentence of September 30, 1996, which found the relator guilty of the offense of disorderly conduct and further incarcerated the relator for a period of ten (10) days, suspended, plus a fine of $100.00 and court costs. Respondent unmistakably entered his judgment and sentence upon the relator's case file jacket and affixed his signature below the judgment and sentence. The disposition as entered upon the relator's case file docket was unequivocally intended to be a judgment. See State ex rel. Hansen v. Reed (1992), 63 Ohio St. 3d 597; State v. Tripodo (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 124. In addition, the clerk of the Bedford Municipal Court did enter the judgment and sentence upon the computerized docket as employed by the Bedford Municipal Court. Finally, the relator paid his fine and court costs in full and thus possessed a right to expect finality with regard to his criminal matter. See, Brookpark v. Necak (1986), 30 Ohio App.3d 118; Columbus v. Messer (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 266. See, also, State ex rel. Rice v. McGrath (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 70. Based upon the facts peculiar to the case before this court, the respondents did not possess the statutory authority to vacate the lawful judgment and sentence of September 30, 1996, and -5- subsequently reinstate for trial the original charged offense of domestic violence. Thus, the respondents patently and unambiguously lack the jurisdiction necessary to try the relator with regard to the original charge of domestic violence as brought in the case of City of Bedford v. Anthony White, Bedford Municipal Case No. 96-CRV-00935. Cf. State ex rel. Adams v. Gusweiler (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 326; State ex rel. Coyne v. Todia (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 232. Accordingly, we overrule respondents' motion to dismiss and grant a preemptory writ of prohibition. Writ of prohibition allowed. Costs to respondents. BLACKMON, J., and JOSEPH J. NAHRA PATTON, J., CONCUR. PRESIDING JUDGE .