2020 Ohio 4921
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Relator Nelson Roy Wesley is jailed in Cuyahoga County and faced two criminal matters: a failure-to-comply/criminal-damaging case (CR-18-628491-A) in which he had been released on bond, and a later attempted-murder indictment (CR-19-639908) carrying a $100,000 bond.
- Wesley’s bond in the failure-to-comply case was revoked after he missed pretrial hearings due to incarceration on other matters; counsel filed three motions to reinstate bond (Aug. 21, 2019; Feb. 13, 2020; June 17, 2020).
- The trial court denied the first motion (Oct. 21, 2019); the later two motions were pending and, according to the respondent, were denied and journalized on Sept. 15, 2020.
- Wesley filed a mandamus petition asking the appellate court to (1) compel the trial court to rule on the pending motions and (2) order the trial court to reinstate bond/allow him to be bailable (asserting health/COVID risk).
- The appellate court issued an alternative writ to show cause, then denied relief to the extent Wesley sought to control the trial court’s exercise of judicial discretion; the respondent moved for summary judgment contending mootness.
- The court held the claim seeking rulings on the pending motions was moot (rulings entered), denied reconsideration of its sua sponte dismissal of the demand to reinstate bond (mandamus is not the proper vehicle to control judicial discretion), and directed Wesley to habeas corpus if he sought relief as to bail (and noted he failed to name the jailer).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relator is entitled to a writ compelling the trial court to rule on two pending motions to reinstate bond | Wesley: respondent has failed to rule; mandamus may compel issuance of a ruling | Respondent: rulings were entered on Sept. 15, 2020; claim is moot | Moot — relief on this claim denied because rulings were journalized |
| Whether mandamus can be used to compel the trial court to reinstate bond or otherwise make relator bailable | Wesley: he has a right to reasonable bail and asks the court to direct reinstatement or to require the court to set bond (health/COVID concerns) | Respondent: mandamus cannot control judicial discretion; trial court has authority under Crim.R. 46 to amend/revoke bond; habeas is the proper remedy for excessive or denied bail | Denied — mandamus cannot control judicial discretion; relator’s remedy, if any, is habeas corpus against the custodian |
| Whether the appellate court should treat relator’s claim as habeas corpus in this mandamus action | Wesley: asks reconsideration and contends court should require respondent to make him bailable | Respondent: mandamus pleading is not a habeas petition; habeas has different pleading rules and must name the jailer/custodian | Denied — court will not convert the mandamus petition to habeas; relator failed to name the jailer so habeas would be deficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Berger v. McMonagle, 451 N.E.2d 225 (Ohio 1983) (elements required for issuance of a writ of mandamus)
- Harris v. Rhodes, 374 N.E.2d 641 (Ohio 1978) (mandamus standards and availability)
- Ney v. Niehaus, 515 N.E.2d 914 (Ohio 1987) (mandamus may not control judicial discretion)
- Williams v. Croce, 106 N.E.3d 55 (Ohio 2018) (mandamus becomes moot when the respondent issues the requested ruling)
- Jenkins v. Billy, 538 N.E.2d 1045 (Ohio 1989) (habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to challenge bail)
- In re Mason, 688 N.E.2d 552 (Ohio App. 1996) (trial court within its discretion to revoke bail after new, serious charges were filed)