COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 75246 STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. : PETITION FOR WRIT OF GREGORY JACKSON : PROHIBITION : Relator : MOTION NO. 766 : vs. : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION : KENNETH R, CALLAHAN, JUDGE : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO : : Respondent : : DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : NOVEMBER 25, 1998 JUDGMENT : WRIT DENIED. APPEARANCES: For Relator : GREGORY JACKSON, Pro Se No. 340-378 P. O. Box 57 Marion, Ohio 43301-0057 For Respondent : STEPHANIE TUBBS-JONES Cuyahoga County Prosecutor L. CHRISTOPHER FREY, Assistant Justice Center, Courts Tower 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, A.J.: Relator was found guilty by a jury of all three counts in the indictment in State v. Jackson, Cuyahoga County Court of Common -2- Pleas Case No. CR-351438, which is assigned to respondent. Relator's appeal of that judgment is pending as Case No. 73571. Relator observes that the clerk's stamp indicating received for filing appears only on count 1 of the indictment and not on counts 2 and 3. Relator argues that, because Crim.R. 6(F) requires the filing of an indictment, the court of common pleas lacked jurisdiction to hear counts 2 and 3 and this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal in Case No. 73571. Relator requests that this court issue a writ of prohibition to prohibit respondent's further execution of petitioner's sentence ***. Complaint, par. 11. Respondent has filed a motion for summary judgment (Motion No. 99939). Respondent observes that the docket in Case No. CR-351438 reflects the filing of all three counts. Furthermore, respondent contends that relator has an adequate remedy by way of appeal. Respondent also argues that prohibition is not appropriate to prevent a future action. Relator replies, however, that prohibition lies because he remains incarcerated. In State ex rel. Saxon v. Court of Common Pleas (Jan. 29, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 73607, unreported, the relator requested that this court issue a writ of prohibition in an attempt to vacate the sentence of incarceration that was imposed in [a criminal proceeding before the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas]. Id. at 2. Herein, the relator raises issues that should be raised upon a direct appeal from the conviction ***. The relator clearly possesses an adequate remedy at law, which prevents this court from issuing a writ of -3- prohibition. State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141. Id. at 2-3. The Saxon court granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment and denied the relator's request for relief in prohibition. Likewise, in State ex rel. LaGuta v. McAllister (Mar. 11, 1992), Cuyahoga App. No. 63161, unreported, the relator requested relief in prohibition to prohibit further execution of an illegal sentence ***. Id. at 2. This court held that relator had adequate remedies by way of direct appeal and postconviction relief. Moreover, although Mr. LaGuta tries to form his claims so as to prevent an exercise of power, the substance is really to correct that which has already been done. Prohibition is not to be used to review the regularity of acts already performed. State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Court of Common Pleas of Butler County (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 188, 398 N.E.2d 777. Therefore, prohibition is inappropriate ***. Id. at 3. The LaGuta court granted the respondents' motions to dismiss. Both Saxonand LaGuta demonstrate that relator in this action has an adequate remedy by way of direct appeal. Saxon clearly holds that prohibition does not lie to compel a court to vacate a sentence. LaGuta also demonstrates that prohibition does lie to prevent future enforcement of a sentence. Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary judgment is granted. Relator to pay costs. Writ denied. -4- JAMES M. PORTER, J., CONCURS. .