Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State ex rel. Jones v. Garfield Heights Municipal Court
Citation: 77 Ohio St. 3d 447Docket: No. 96-1375
Court: Ohio Supreme Court; February 18, 1997; Ohio; State Supreme Court
Jones argued that the court of appeals improperly dismissed his complaint for a writ of prohibition without notice. While such dismissals are generally inappropriate, they are justified if the complaint is deemed frivolous or if the claimant cannot prevail on the facts presented. To obtain a writ of prohibition, Jones needed to demonstrate three elements: (1) the municipal court's impending exercise of judicial power; (2) that this exercise is unauthorized by law; and (3) that without the writ, he would suffer irreparable harm with no adequate legal remedy. Jones adequately alleged that the municipal court would proceed with jurisdiction over his criminal case. However, he claimed that the court lacked jurisdiction because he should have been charged with a felony instead of the misdemeanor of petty theft. The municipal court has jurisdiction over misdemeanors within its territory, and Jones was charged with a first-degree misdemeanor, thus confirming the court's jurisdiction. Jones's assertion that he should have been charged with a felony pertains to the prosecutor's decision, which is discretionary and typically not subject to judicial review. As he was not charged with a felony, the municipal court did not lack jurisdiction over his case. Consequently, since Jones could not succeed on the merits of his claims, the court of appeals' dismissal of his complaint was affirmed. The judgment of the court of appeals was upheld unanimously.