Smith v. Warren

Ohio Supreme Court

Smith v. Warren

89 Ohio St. 3d 467, 2000 WL 973025

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 16, 2000

DocketNo. 00-429

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 89 Ohio St. 3d 467 (Smith v. Warren) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Warren, 89 Ohio St. 3d 467, 2000 WL 973025 (Ohio 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Smith asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his prohibition action. Smith’s assertion is meritless.

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 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.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Smith asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his prohibition action. Smith’s assertion is meritless.

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 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.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 Ohio St. 3d 467, 2000 WL 973025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-warren-ohio-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack