2000 OHIO 223 - Smith v. Warren

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at

89 Ohio St.3d 467

.]




                SMITH, APPELLANT, v. WARREN, JUDGE, APPELLEE.
                     [Cite as Smith v. Warren,

2000-Ohio-223

.]
Prohibition—Writ sought to compel common pleas court judge to vacate fines
        assessed as part of relator’s criminal convictions and sentence, and to
        return $4,774 to relator—Dismissal of complaint by court of appeals
        affirmed.
        (No. 00-429—Submitted June 6, 2000—Decided August 16, 2000.)
     APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Allen County, No. CA99120103.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} In December 1999, appellant, Tobe Smith, filed a complaint in the
Court of Appeals for Allen County for a writ of prohibition to compel appellee,
Allen County Common Pleas Court Judge Richard K. Warren, to vacate fines
assessed as part of Smith’s criminal convictions and sentence, and to return $4,774
to Smith. The court of appeals granted Judge Warren’s motion and dismissed the
complaint.
        {¶ 2} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.
                                  __________________
        Tobe Smith, pro se.
        Jana E. Gutman, Allen County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for
appellee.
                                  __________________
        Per Curiam.
        {¶ 3} Smith asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his
prohibition action. Smith’s assertion is meritless.
        {¶ 4} Prohibition will not issue if relator has an adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d
                             SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




313, 316,

725 N.E.2d 663, 667

. Appeal, not prohibition, is the remedy for the
correction of errors or irregularities of a court having proper jurisdiction. State ex
rel. Jackson v. Miller (1998),

83 Ohio St.3d 541, 543

700 N.E.2d 1273, 1275

.
Smith’s assertion of sentencing error is nonjurisdictional, and he had an adequate
remedy by appeal to raise this issue. Smith v. Walker (1998),

83 Ohio St.3d 431, 432

700 N.E.2d 592

. Therefore, he was not entitled to the requested extraordinary
relief in prohibition.
        {¶ 5} 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.
                               __________________




                                          2