State ex rel. Bradford v. Trumbull Cty. Court

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of

Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,

1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice

Thomas J. Moyer.

Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's

Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.

Kobalka, Reporter, or Justine Michael, Administrative

Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.

Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.

NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the

full texts of the opinions after they have been released

electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised

to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West

Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume

and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound

volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

The State ex rel. Bradford, Appellant, v. Trumbull County

Court et al., Appellees.

[Cite as State ex rel. Bradford v. Trumbull Cty. Court

(1992), Ohio St.3d .]

Prohibition to prevent exercise of county court's jurisdiction

not available, when -- Adequate remedy at law available.

(No. 91-1000 -- Submitted June 17, 1992 -- Decided

September 2, 1992.)

Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Trumbull County, No.

90-T-4427.

Relator-appellant, Brian Bradford, alleges that on January

28, 1990, he attended a Super Bowl party at Yankee Lake

Ballroom in Yankee Lake Village located in Trumbull County,

Ohio. The party organizer's policy did not permit guests to

reenter after leaving the party. While attempting to complain

about this policy, relator apparently had an altercation with a

Brookfield Township police officer who provided security for

the party. Relator was arrested and charged in the Trumbull

County Court, Eastern District, with resisting arrest, assault,

and disorderly conduct.

Relator brought this complaint in prohibition in the Court

of Appeals for Trumbull County on July 17, 1990, contending

that the trial court had no jurisdiction of the underlying

case. On March 18, 1991, the court of appeals denied the writ,

holding that relator had an adequate remedy at law.

The cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of

right.

John P. Lutseck, for appellant.

Dennis Watkins, Prosecuting Attorney, and James Misocky,

for appellees.

Per Curiam. For a writ of prohibition to issue, the

respondent must be about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial

power, the exercise of that power must be unauthorized by law,

and refusal of the writ must result in injury for which no

other adequate legal remedy exists. State ex rel. Columbus S.

Power Co. v. Sheward (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 78, 79, 585 N.E.2d

380, 381.

I

Appellant argues in his first proposition of law that the

county court does not have jurisdiction to hear his case. This

argument is based on the power of the courts of common pleas to

establish the jurisdiction of county courts.

R.C. 1907.01 provides:

"There is hereby created in each county of the state, in

which the territorial jurisdiction of a municipal court or

municipal courts is not coextensive with the boundaries of the

county, a court to be known as the county court. The county

court shall have jurisdiction throughout a county court

district that shall consist of all territory within the county

not subject to the territorial jurisdiction of any municipal

court. County courts are courts of record for all purposes of

law."

By entry of May 25, 1982, the Court of Common Pleas of

Trumbull County listed all of the townships and municipalities

that were to be included within the jurisdiction of the

Trumbull County Court. Included within this determination of

jurisdiction was the village of Yankee Lake.

Pursuant to R.C. 1907.11, two county judges are required

where the population of a county court district exceeds thirty

thousand but does not exceed sixty thousand. The population of

the Trumbull County Court District was found to be 37,040 by

the court of common pleas, which divided the responsibilities

of the two judges mandated by the statute into two districts -

- a central district and an eastern district. The court of

common pleas assigned all the townships to either the central

or the eastern district but, probably due to an oversight, did

not specifically assign Yankee Lake to either of these

districts.

Appellant contends that because Yankee Lake was not

assigned to a district in the court's journal entry, the

eastern district where his criminal case is pending lacks

jurisdiction of his case.

Appellees argue that Brookfield Township was assigned to

the eastern district and that this court should take judicial

notice that Yankee Lake is located within Brookfield Township.

This being so, Yankee Lake would have been included within the

eastern district.

Appellant has made no showing that either district lacks

jurisdiction. It can equally be argued that Yankee Lake has

been included in the general jurisdiction of the county court

and either district could properly assume jurisdiction. We do

not have to address this issue at this time since the eastern

district has already assumed jurisdiction and appellant has an

adequate remedy at law by way of appeal:

"Absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a

court having general jurisdiction of the subject matter of an

action has authority to determine its own jurisdiction. A

party challenging the court's jurisdiction has an adequate

remedy at law via appeal from the court's holding that it has

jurisdiction. Middleburg Heights v. Brown (1986), 24 Ohio

St.3d 66, 68, 24 OBR 215, 216-217, 493 N.E.2d 547, 549; State

ex rel. Gilla v. Fellerhoff (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 86, 73 O.O.2d

328, 338 N.E.2d 522." (Emphasis added.) State ex rel. Pearson

v. Moore (1990), 48 Ohio St.3d 37, 38, 548 N.E.2d 945, 946.

II

Appellant in his second proposition of law asserts that

the law enforcement officer who arrested him did not have

jurisdiction because there is no provision in law for a

contract between a municipality and a township for police

protection. Appellant cites R.C. 737.04, which allows for such

contracts between municipalities, but does not include those

contracts between townships and municipalities. We need not

reach the merits of this proposition since the question in this

prohibition action is whether the county court has

jurisdiction, not whether the contract between the municipal

corporation and the township with regard to police protection

is valid.

III

Appellant in his third proposition of law argues:

(1) His arrest was invalid because the arresting police

officer was engaged in illegal activities, i.e., protecting

illegal gambling and violation of liquor laws;

(2) the police officer did not have authority to make the

arrest; and

(3) the arrest was made in violation of the Fourth

Amendment.

All the above involve questions of law and, as such, are

properly appealable. This being so, appellant has an adequate

remedy at law.

Accordingly, appellant has an adequate remedy at law for

all issues raised by his propositions of law. The judgment of

the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Wright, H. Brown and

Resnick, JJ., concur.

Douglas, J., concurs in judgment only.