Summary
In Racine, supra, we affirmed a Court of Appeals' decision granting a motion to dismiss relator's complaint in mandamus seeking that the trial court discharge him pursuant to R.C. 2945.71 et seq.
Summary of this case from In re SingerOpinion
No. 75-426
Decided November 26, 1975.
Mandamus — Remedy not available, when — Adequate remedy of appeal available — Action pending in lower court of competent jurisdiction.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Mercer County.
On November 14, 1972, a grand jury in Mercer County returned an indictment against Carol Ann Racine, relator herein, charging her with drug-related offenses. Following her arrest, on February 27, 1973, relator waived service of the indictment and posted bail in the Court of Common Pleas. After a continuance, relator, on August 16, 1973, pleaded "not gulity" to each count in the indictment. Various defense motions were filed the following month. In August of 1974, relator filed a motion for an order discharging her from prosecution in the Court of Common Pleas, and, on January 31, 1975, a hearing on the defense motions was had before respondent Judge Paul P. Dull.
Relator, not having received notice with respect to her pending defense motions by January 3, 1975, filed the instant complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals. Relator alleges the denial of her right to a speedy trial pursuant to the time limits established by R.C. 2945.71 et seq., and seeks her discharge from further prosecution in the Court of Common Pleas.
The Court of Appeals granted the motions to dismiss the complaint in mandamus, holding that it "has no authority in mandamus to determine what judgment should be rendered by the trial court for relator has an adequate remedy by way of appeal."
An appeal as of right brings the cause to this court for review.
Mr. Ronald G. Heck, for appellant.
Mr. William M. Meikle, prosecuting attorney, for appellees.
In State, ex rel. Woodbury, v. Spitler (1974), 40 Ohio St.2d 1, 3, followed in State, ex rel. Wentz, v. Correll (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 101, this court held:
"* * * Where an action is pending and undetermined in a lower court of competent jurisdiction, and where there is otherwise an adequate remedy by way of appeal, this court has no authority to determine what judgment should be rendered by the lower court."
In the instant case, relator has an adequate remedy by way of appeal.
Accordingly, on authority of State, ex rel. Woodbury, v. Spitler, supra, and State, ex rel. Wentz, v. Correll, supra, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
O'NEILL, C.J., PUTMAN, CORRIGAN, STERN, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN and P. BROWN, JJ., concur.
PUTMAN, J., of the Fifth Appellate District, sitting for HERBERT, J.