McCain v. Huffman (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 9241

Background

In May 2004 McCain was indicted for felony murder, aggravated robbery, and falsification; at his May 25, 2004 arraignment before Judge Froelich the court record states McCain “stood mute” and a not-guilty plea was entered for him; McCain claims he attempted to plead guilty at that arraignment.
On September 28, 2004 McCain pleaded guilty before Judge Huffman to felony murder and aggravated robbery; the falsification count was dismissed by the state.
At sentencing on October 12, 2004 Judge Huffman erroneously included postrelease control for both convictions; a later nunc pro tunc entry corrected postrelease control for the aggravated-robbery conviction but left the felony-murder entry intact.
McCain sought arraignment records (video, transcripts) and Judge Huffman denied the request.
In 2016 McCain filed a mandamus action in the court of appeals seeking (1) records under Ohio’s Public Records Act and (2) relief invalidating his plea/sentence based on his claim that he had attempted to plead guilty at the Froelich arraignment and on alleged ineffective assistance and constitutional violations.
The court of appeals dismissed the complaint in full (also dismissing Judge Froelich because he no longer served as a common-pleas judge). McCain appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an alleged attempted guilty plea at a prior judge’s arraignment divested a successor judge of jurisdiction to accept a later plea	McCain: his attempted plea at the Froelich arraignment meant Huffman lacked jurisdiction to accept the later guilty plea	Judges: trial court retains jurisdiction until final judgment under Crim.R. 32; prior attempt did not divest successor judge	Court: rejected McCain; jurisdiction remains until final judgment, so Huffman retained authority to accept plea
Whether mandamus is the appropriate remedy to obtain release from confinement or to challenge the conviction/sentence	McCain: sought relief via mandamus to invalidate plea/sentence and obtain release	State: habeas corpus or direct/postconviction remedies, not mandamus, are the proper routes for release/challenge to confinement	Court: mandamus is not the proper vehicle to obtain release; habeas corpus (or other postconviction remedies) is appropriate
Whether the trial judge or successor must produce public records for an inmate without a finding that records are necessary to a justiciable claim	McCain: requested arraignment records under R.C. 149.43 to prove his attempted plea	Judge Huffman: under R.C. 149.43(B)(8) a judge or successor must find the records necessary to support a justiciable claim before producing them for an inmate	Court: affirmed denial—even if records showed McCain’s version, it would not entitle him to mandamus relief against Huffman
Whether alleged ineffective assistance of counsel or sentencing error (postrelease control) created a clear legal duty on the part of the judge warranting mandamus	McCain: counsel ineffective at arraignment, plea, and sentencing; sentencing contained postrelease-control error	Judges: mandamus requires a clear legal duty by the judge and an adequate pleading showing that duty; sentencing error remedy is a new sentencing hearing on postrelease control, not mandamus release	Court: McCain failed to show a judge’s clear legal duty to act; postrelease-control error (if any) is remedied by resentencing on that issue, not by mandamus to release him

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gilbert, 143 Ohio St.3d 150 (court retains jurisdiction until final judgment under Crim.R. 32)
State ex rel. Briscoe v. Matia, 128 Ohio St.3d 365 (mandamus is not proper remedy to obtain release from confinement)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (remedy for postrelease-control sentencing error is new sentencing hearing on postrelease control)
State ex rel. Birdsall v. Stephenson, 68 Ohio St.3d 353 (mandamus requires a clear legal duty and lack of adequate remedy at law)