Opinion
No. 79-1101
Decided January 2, 1980.
Prohibition — To prohibit trial court from proceeding with criminal charge — Writ denied, when.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.
This is an appeal as of right from the dismissal of a complaint for a writ of prohibition by the Court of Appeals.
Relator, Robert I. Wall, seeks to prohibit the respondent, Judge David E. Grossman, from proceeding in a case in the Juvenile Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, in which relator is charged with acts tending to cause the unruliness of a child (R.C. 2151.41). Relator contends that he has already been charged with other violations of law arising from the same events.
Appellant recites that on February 13, 1979, the Hamilton County Grand Jury ignored a charge of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles (R.C. 2907.31); on March 5, 1979, a charge of interference with custody (R.C. 2919.23) was dismissed for want of prosecution; on February 16, 1979, relator was acquitted of probation violation; and on March 12, 1979, he was acquitted of two charges of public indecency (R.C. 2907.09).
Relator's motion to dismiss the charge now pending was denied by respondent. That motion urged, inter alia, double jeopardy and abuse of discretion by the prosecutor's office.
Mr. Timothy A. Smith, for appellant.
Mr. Simon L. Leis, Jr., prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Leonard Kirschner, for appellee.
The conditions which must exist to support the issuance of a writ of prohibition are: "(1) The court or officer against whom it is sought must be about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power must be unauthorized by law; and (3) it must appear that the refusal of the writ would result in injury for which there is no other adequate remedy." State, ex rel. Lehmann, v. Cmich (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 11.
Here, as in State, ex rel. Adler, v. Court (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 1, decided this day, there is no question of the jurisdiction of the court to hear the pending case. The Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Juvenile Division, has jurisdiction to proceed to disposition of a case charging a violation of R.C. 2151.41.
Further, appellant's allegations do not support any unauthorized usurpation of judicial power nor do they show that appeal is not an adequate remedy at law herein. See Adler, supra, and cases cited therein.
For reasons of the foregoing, the judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint in prohibition is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., HERBERT, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.