COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            No. 79793
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.,       :
RONALD LUTZ                   :
                              :          JOURNAL ENTRY
          Relator             :                AND
                              :              OPINION
          -vs-                :
                              :
WILLIAM D. MASON              :
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor,   :
et al.                        :
          Respondent          :
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:            JULY 5, 2001
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:           PETITION FOR WRITS OF
                                   HABEAS CORPUS, MANDAMUS,
                                   AND PROHIBITION
JUDGMENT:                          DISMISSED.
APPEARANCES:
For Relator:                       DONALD E. GEORGE (#0005023)
                                   503 Portage Lakes Dr.,#8
                                   Akron, OH 44319
For Respondents, William D. Mason,
Prosecutor; Judge William Aurelius;
Cuyahoga County Sheriff;
Judge Christine McMonagle;
Judge Richard J. McMonagle:        WILLIAM D. MASON, (#0037540)
                                   Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
                                   The Justice Center, 9th Floor
                                   1200 Ontario Street
                                   Cleveland, OH 44115
For Respondent, State of Ohio:     BETTY D. MONTGOMERY (#0007102)
                                   Attorney General of Ohio
                                   State Office Tower, 16th Floor
                                   30 East Broad Street
                                   Columbus, OH 43215
JUDGE TERRENCE O'DONNELL:
     Sua sponte, we dismiss the relator's  complaint, as filed on
June 13, 2001, which requests that this Court issue a Writ of Habeas
                               -2-
Corpus, a  Writ of  Mandamus,  and a  Writ of  Prohibition.   The
complaint fails  to state  any facts upon  which the  relator can
prevail.   See State ex rel. Peeples v.  Anderson (1995), 73 Ohio
St.3d 559,  653 N.E.2d 371; State ex rel.  Edwards v. Toledo City
School Dist. Bd. Of Edn. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 106, 647 N.E.2d 799,
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.
     Initially, we find that the relator has failed to comply with
the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2725.04(D) which requires that
a copy of the cause of detention be attached to the petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus.  The petition for this writ is thus fatally
defective.   See Brown v.  Rogers (1995), 72 Ohio  St.3d 339, 650
N.E.2d 422; Cornell  v. Schotten (1994),  69 Ohio St.3d  466, 633
N.E.2d 1111; Bloss v. Rogers (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 145, 602 N.E. 2d
602.  In addition, habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy which
may not be employed when there exists an adequate remedy at law such
as an appeal.   Moreover, habeas corpus may not  be employed as a
substitute for an appeal.  Luchene v. Wagner (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d
37, 465 N.E.2d 395.
     In order for this  Court to issue a Writ of Prohibition, the
relator must establish that: 1) the court against whom it is sought
is about to exercise judicial power; 2) the exercise of such power
is unauthorized by law; and that 3) if the writ of habeas corpus is
denied, the relator will suffer injury for which no other adequate
remedy exists.   State ex rel. Connor v.  McGough (1989), 46 Ohio
St.3d 188,  546 N.E.2d  407.   Here,  the relator  has  failed to
                               -3-
establish that the exercise of judicial power by the trial court,
whichinvolves  presiding  over  a  criminal  proceeding  against
the relator,  is unauthorized  by law.  In addition,  the relator
possesses an adequate remedy at law through a direct appeal.  State
ex rel. Largent v. Fisher (1988), 43 Ohio St.3d 160, 540 N.E.2d 239;
State ex rel. Fyffe v. Pirece (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 8, 531 N.E.2d
673.
     Finally, in order for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus,
the relator must establish that: 1) the relator has a clear legal
right to the relief requested; 2) the respondent is under a clear
legal duty to perform the requested act; and that 3) in the absence
of the  writ, the relator will sustain an  injury for which there
exists no plain or  adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the
law. State ex rel. Harris v. Rhodes (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 41, 374
N.E.2d 641.  Here, the relator has failed to establish what clear
legal right he possesses  and what relief he requests; nor has he
established what clear legal duty respondent must perform.  Finally,
we recognize that relator also possesses an adequate remedy at law
through a  direct appeal.  State ex rel.  Walker v. Bowling Green
(1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 391, 632 N.E.2d 904; State ex rel. Baker v.
Schiemann (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 391, 619 N.E.2d 692: State ex rel.
Kuczak v. Saffold (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 123, 616 N.E.2d 230.
     Accordingly, we dismiss the relator's complaint seeking Writs
of Habeas Corpus, Prohibition, and Mandamus.  Costs to relator.  It
is further ordered  that the Clerk  shall serve upon  all parties
notice of this judgment and date of entry pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B).
                               -4-
     So ordered.
MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, P.J. and
JAMES J. SWEENEY, J. CONCUR.
                                        TERRENCE O'DONNELL
                                               JUDGE
 
 
 
.