Collins v. State, 2011 Ohio 4964

Relator Tony D. Collins seeks a writ of mandamus against the State via the prosecuting attorney to stop funds removal from his prison account to satisfy court costs.
The challenge centers on whether Ohio law allows such deductions without a garnishment hearing or proper exemptions notice.
The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment to the respondent, denying mandamus relief.
The court notes the captioned complaint is defective for failure to name the proper respondent and to provide respondent's address.
Ohio law requires court costs be included in sentencing and directs collection through the clerk of courts and the prison account post-sentencing, with possible waivers only on motion at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is mandamus proper when ordinary remedies exist?	Collins argues mandamus is needed to halt collection.	State argues there is an adequate remedy via appeal.	No mandamus; adequate remedy via appeal exists.
Was the action properly captioned and directed at the proper respondent?	Collins failed to name the respondent and provide address.	Miscaptioning warrants dismissal; but merits are addressed.	Action dismissed on procedural grounds; merits addressed anyway.
May the clerk collect court costs from a prisoner’s account without notice under exemptions?	Argues due process and exemptions require notice.	Clerk may collect pursuant to statutes; exemptions governed by R.C. 2329.66 and 5120.133.	Clerk may collect; no mandamus relief; collection authorized as per statute.

State ex rel. Pless v. McMonagle, 139 Ohio App.3d 503 (2000) (costs included in sentence; challenges on appeal)
State v. White, 103 Ohio St.3d 580 (2004) (felony costs may be imposed; clerks may collect)
State ex rel. Sherrills v. State, 91 Ohio St.3d 133 (2001) (defect in caption/identification of respondents requires dismissal)
State v. Holloman, 2011-Ohio-4236 (Cuyahoga App.) (discretion to waive costs; adequate remedy by appeal)