State ex rel. Henry v. McMonagle

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

87 Ohio St.3d 543

.]




 THE STATE EX REL. HENRY, APPELLANT, v. MCMONAGLE, JUDGE, APPELLEE.
           [Cite as State ex rel. Henry v. McMonagle, 

2000-Ohio-477

.]
Prohibition—Writ prohibiting judge of common pleas court from exercising
        judicial authority by accepting relator’s guilty plea and pronouncing
        sentence—Dismissal of complaint affirmed.
   (No. 99-1316—Submitted November 16, 1999–Decided January 19, 2000.)
       APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 75464.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} In June 1991, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted appellant,
Toriano D. Henry, on one count of aggravated murder and one count of attempted
murder. The aggravated murder charge included a mass-murder death-penalty
specification and a firearm specification, and the attempted murder charge included
a firearm specification.
        {¶ 2} In September 1991, the state amended the aggravated murder charge
by deleting the death-penalty and firearm specifications, and Henry pled guilty to
the amended aggravated murder charge and the attempted murder count and
accompanying firearm specification as charged in the indictment.                   Appellee,
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Richard J. McMonagle, accepted
Henry’s guilty plea and sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of twenty years
to life for aggravated murder and five to twenty-five years plus three years of actual
incarceration for attempted murder and the accompanying firearm specification.
        {¶ 3} In 1998, Henry filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition to vacate his
conviction and sentence. Henry claimed that Judge McMonagle failed to comply
with the requirement of R.C. 2945.06 that a three-judge panel examine the
witnesses and determine whether the accused is guilty of aggravated murder or any
other offense punishable with death if the accused pleads guilty to aggravated
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




murder.      Judge McMonagle filed a motion to dismiss Henry’s complaint.
Thereafter, the court of appeals granted Judge McMonagle’s motion and dismissed
the cause.
         {¶ 4} This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.
                               __________________
         Toriano D. Henry, pro se.
         William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sherry F.
McCreary, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
                               __________________
         Per Curiam.
         {¶ 5} Henry asserts that the court of appeals erred in refusing to grant his
requested writ of prohibition. In order to be entitled to a writ of prohibition, Henry
must establish that (1) Judge McMonagle is about to exercise judicial or quasi-
judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denial
of the writ will cause injury for which no other adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law exists. McAuley v. Smith (1998), 

82 Ohio St.3d 393, 395

, 

696 N.E.2d 572, 574

. Here, Judge McMonagle exercised judicial authority by accepting
Henry’s guilty plea and sentencing him. At issue is whether Judge McMonagle’s
exercise of that power was unauthorized and caused Henry injury that was not
reparable by any other legal remedy.
         {¶ 6} We find that Judge McMonagle did not patently and unambiguously
lack jurisdiction to accept Henry’s guilty plea and pronounce sentence. Henry had
an adequate legal remedy by appeal from Judge McMonagle’s sentence to raise his
claim.
         {¶ 7} R.C. 2945.06 does not require an examination of witnesses,
determination of guilt, and pronouncement of sentence by a three-judge court if the
accused is not charged with an offense punishable by death. Ullman v. Seiter
(1985), 

18 Ohio St.3d 59

, 18 OBR 92, 

479 N.E.2d 875

. In this regard, R.C. 2945.06




                                          2
                              January Term, 2000




must be construed in pari materia with Crim.R. 11(C). State v. Green (1998), 

81 Ohio St.3d 100, 104

, 

689 N.E.2d 556, 559

. At the time Henry pled guilty, his
indictment had been amended to delete any death-penalty specification. Therefore,
neither R.C. 2945.06 nor Crim.R. 11(C) required an examination and determination
by a three-judge panel because Henry was no longer charged with an offense
punishable by death at the time he entered his guilty plea. See Crim.R. 11(C)(4);
Ullman, 

18 Ohio St.3d at 60

, 18 OBR at 93, 

479 N.E.2d at 876

.
       {¶ 8} Accordingly, 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.
                             __________________




                                        3