Brooks v. Gaul - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

[Cite as Brooks v. Gaul, 89 Ohio St.3d 202, 2000-Ohio-133.]

BROOKS, APPELLANT, v. GAUL, JUDGE, APPELLEE.
[Cite as Brooks v. Gaul (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 202.]
Prohibition -- Writ sought to prevent common pleas court judge from enforcing
relator's conviction of aggravated murder and from sentencing relator to
life imprisonment -- Dismissal of complaint by court of appeals affirmed.
(No. 99-2136 -- Submitted April 10, 2000 -- Decided June 21, 2000.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 76937.

In 1994, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas convicted appellant,
Charles Brooks, of aggravated murder upon a jury verdict and sentenced him to
life imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment. State v. Brooks
(Aug. 31, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 67870, unreported, 1995 WL 517091.

In September 1999, Brooks filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for
Cuyahoga County for a writ of prohibition to prevent appellee, Cuyahoga County
Common Pleas Court Judge Daniel Gaul, from enforcing Brooks's conviction and
sentence. Brooks claimed that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict and
sentence him because it allowed the jury to consider evidence that had not been
admitted, including a 911 tape, and it instructed the jury to consider only four
verdicts, which did not include a requested self-defense instruction. Judge Gaul

filed a motion to dismiss Brooks's complaint, and on November 4, 1999, the court
of appeals granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.

This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.
__________________

Charles Brooks, pro se.
__________________

Per Curiam. Brooks claims that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his
prohibition action. For the following reasons, this claim lacks merit.

In the absence of a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court
having general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine its own jurisdiction, and a
party challenging that jurisdiction has an adequate remedy at law by appeal. Page
v. Riley (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 621, 623, 710 N.E.2d 690, 692. Prohibition will not
issue as a substitute for appeal to review mere errors in judgment. Berthelot v.
Dezso (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 257, 259, 714 N.E.2d 888, 890.

Therefore, Brooks had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise his claims on
appeal, and he is precluded from raising them by extraordinary writ. See State ex
rel. Poore v. Mayer (1964), 176 Ohio St. 78, 79, 26 O.O.2d 375, 376, 197 N.E.2d
557, 558 (prohibition unavailable to challenge erroneous ruling on the
admissibility of evidence); Smith v. Mitchell (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 624, 625, 687

2

N.E.2d 749, 750 (claims of erroneous jury instructions and verdict forms should
have been raised on direct appeal rather than in action for habeas corpus).

In addition, as the court of appeals noted, the partial transcript attached to
Brooks's complaint established that the 911 tape was admitted into evidence, so
that Judge Gaul did not err in permitting the jury to consider it during its
deliberations.

Finally, because it is evident that Brooks seeks release from prison, he
should have raised these claims in a habeas corpus action instead of by way of
prohibition. See State ex rel. Jackson v. Callahan (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 73, 711
N.E.2d 686.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

3