Ohio Supreme Court, 1998

State ex rel. Dix v. McAllister

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided February 18, 1998 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

81 Ohio St. 3d 107; 689 N.E.2d 561

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Taylor (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State ex rel. Smith v. Cuyahoga Cty. Sheriff (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
State ex. rel Brown v. Krichbaum (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
State Ex Rel. Jordan v. Pike, 08 Co 43 (5-8-2009) (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
State ex rel. Simpson v. Cooper (Ohio 2008)
State ex rel. Pesci v. Lucci (Ohio 2007)
State ex rel. Elko v. Suster (Ohio 2006)
State ex rel. Hawk v. Athens County (Ohio 2005)
State ex rel. Jackson v. Callahan (Ohio 1999)
State ex rel. Jackson v. Callahan (Ohio 1999)
State ex rel. Massimiani v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
State v. Alley, Unpublished Decision (8-31-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State v. Byrd, Unpublished Decision (12-30-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State v. Schoolcraft, Unpublished Decision (10-24-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State Ex Rel. Logue v. Fregiato, Unpublished Decision (3-11-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Robinson, Unpublished Decision (9-25-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State ex rel. Dix v. McAllister (Ohio 1998)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Dix asserts that the court of appeals erred by dismissing his complaint. The court of appeals, however, properly dismissed Dix’s complaint for the following reasons.

First, as the court of appeals held, the misnumbering of the aggravated murder statute in Dix’s indictment did not invalidate the indictment, as we held in State v. Morales (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 252, 254, 513 N.E.2d 267, 270, fn. 4. See Crim.R. 7(B), which provides:

“Each count of the indictment or information shall state the numerical designation of the statute that the defendant is alleged to have violated. Error in the numerical designation or omission of the numerical designation shall not be ground for dismissal of the indictment or information, or for reversal of a conviction, if the error or omission did not prejudicially mislead the defendant.” (Emphasis added.)

Second, Dix had an adequate remedy at law by direct appeal to raise his challenge to the validity or sufficiency of his indictment. State ex rel. Yauger v. Seidner (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 69, 671 N.E.2d 29. A "writ of mandamus will not issue if there is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. R.C. 2731.05; State ex rel. Walker v. Lancaster City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 216, 218, 680 N.E.2d 993, 995.

Third, Dix’s double jeopardy claim is not cognizable in mandamus. See, e.g., Wenzel v. Enright (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 63, 66, 623 N.E.2d 69, 72; Borsick v. State (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 258, 652 N.E.2d 951.

Finally, Dix sought release from prison by invalidating his conviction and sentence through his mandamus action. But habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is the appropriate remedy for persons claiming entitlement to immediate release from prison. State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Bd. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 140, 684 N.E.2d 1227.

Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed Dix’s complaint. 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.