[Cite as Pryor v. Heath,
2017-Ohio-7832.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
NC LAFONSE PRYOR, : JUDGES:
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
Relator, : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs- :
:
JUDGE TARYN L. HEATH, ET. AL., : Case No. 2017CA00023
:
Respondents, : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Prohibition
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: September 25, 2017
APPEARANCES:
For Relator For Respondent Taryn L. Heath
NC LAFONSE PRYOR, pro se MARK CALDWELL
Inmate #A700536 Stark County Prosecutor
Mansfield Correctional Institution 110 Central Plaza South, Suite 510
1150 N. Main Street Canton, Ohio 44702
Mansfield, Ohio 44905
For Respondents Judge Curt Werren
and Judge John A. Poulos
ANDREA M. SCASSA
Staff Attorney
Canton Municipal Court
218 Cleveland Ave. S.W.
Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00023 2
Canton, Ohio 44702
Baldwin, J.
{¶1} NC Lafonse Pryor has filed a petition for writ of prohibition against Judge
Taryn Heath, Judge Curt Werren, and Judge John A. Poulos.
{¶2} Relator claims Respondents lack jurisdiction because Relator’s arrest was
made without a warrant, his bond was excessive, he was not given a prompt “judicial
determination,” and his extradition from Georgia was improper.
FACTS
{¶3} On August 1, 2016, a rape occurred in the City of Canton. Relator was
arrested the next day on August 2, 2016 in Georgia on an outstanding warrant for failure
to register as a sex offender. He was a suspect in the August 1, 2016 rape at the time of
his arrest. On August 3, 2016, charges were filed against Relator for rape, kidnapping,
and felonious assault relating to the August 1, 2016 Canton rape.
{¶4} Relator states he waived extradition in Georgia without the presence of
counsel. He was returned to Ohio and arraigned on charges of failure to register as a sex
offender, rape, kidnapping, and felonious assault. His bond was set in the municipal court
at 20 million dollars. Relator was directly indicted by the grand jury prior to the preliminary
hearing being held. The bond was later reduced to two million dollars by the common
pleas court. According to the trial court’s docket, Relator has now pled guilty to rape,
kidnapping and felonious assault and has been sentenced.
PROHIBITION
Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00023 3
{¶5} To be entitled to the requested writ of prohibition, petitioner must establish
that (1) the court is about to exercise or has exercised judicial power, (2) the exercise of
that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denying the writ would result in injury for which
no other adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Bell v. Pfeiffer,
131 Ohio St.3d 114, 2012–Ohio–54,
961 N.E.2d 181, ¶ 18; State ex rel. Miller v. Warren
Cty. Bd. of Elections,
130 Ohio St.3d 24, 2011–Ohio–4623,
955 N.E.2d 379, ¶ 12.” State
ex rel. Walton v. Williams,
145 Ohio St.3d 469, 471, 2016–Ohio–1054,
50 N.E.3d 520,
523, ¶ 13 (2016).
{¶6} A writ of prohibition, regarding the unauthorized exercise of judicial power,
will only be granted where the judicial officer's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is patent
and unambiguous. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Serv., Office of Collective Bargaining v. State Emp.
Relations Bd. (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 48,
562 N.E.2d 125.
EXCESSIVE BOND
{¶7} Although the petition is disjointed and difficult to understand, Relator claims
the bond set by Respondents was excessive.
{¶8} “[A] complaint for a writ of habeas corpus is the proper vehicle for
challenging excessive bail. A writ of prohibition may not be employed to challenge
excessive bail. State ex rel. Baker v. Troutman (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 270,
553 N.E.2d
1053; In re Green (1995), 101 Oho App.3d 726; State ex rel. McFaul (Sept. 30, 1997),
Cuyahoga App. No. 73124, unreported; State ex rel. Ghali v. McFaul (Oct. 15, 1996),
Cuyahoga App. No. 71334, unreported. ”Novak v. State, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 78263,
2000 WL 1006552, *1.
Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00023 4
{¶9} Because prohibition is not the proper vehicle to challenge an improper bond,
the writ of prohibition does not lie with respect to the bond claim.
Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00023 5
TRIAL COURT’S JURISDICTION
{¶10} Relator generally argues that both the municipal and common pleas courts
lack jurisdiction over his case due to an unlawful arrest, a lack of “judicial determination,”
and faulty extradition.
{¶11} “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 by appeal.” State ex rel. Nalls v.
Russo, 96 Ohio St.3d 410,
2002-Ohio-4907,
775 N.E.2d 522, ¶ 18.”State ex rel. State v.
Lewis,
99 Ohio St.3d 97,
2003-Ohio-2476,
789 N.E.2d 195, ¶ 19 (2003).
{¶12} Relator concedes he was charged with several felony offenses. The courts
of common pleas have “original jurisdiction of all crimes and offenses, except … minor
offenses[.]” R.C. 2931.03. Further, the municipal court has jurisdiction to hear felony
cases committed within its territory. In all felony cases, the municipal court may conduct
preliminary hearings and other necessary hearings prior to the indictment of the
defendant. R.C. 1901.20
{¶13} Respondents all properly had general subject matter jurisdiction over
Relator’s case. When subject matter jurisdiction is not patently and unambiguously
lacking, a trial court can determine its own jurisdiction. If the trial court makes an
erroneous determination regarding jurisdiction, a litigant can challenge the determination
by way of direct appeal. The direct appeal provides an adequate remedy at law the
existence of which precludes the issuance of a writ of prohibition.
Stark County, Case No. 2017CA00023 6
{¶14} Because Relator has or had an adequate remedy at law, the writ of
prohibition will not issue. The instant cause is dismissed.
By: Baldwin, J.
Delaney, P.J. and
Hoffman, J. concur.
