State ex rel. Angelo v. Carroll
2013 Ohio 5321
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Angelo filed a mandamus action against Judge Carroll to terminate the no-contact order of his community-control sanctions; the court granted dismissal.
- July 19, 2012: Lakewood Municipal Court sentenced Angelo to one year of community control with no-contact conditions.
- April 15, 2013: violation hearing found Angelo in violation; court passed for sentencing to allow mitigation; no final order yet for a final appeal.
- May 17, 2013: Angelo filed an affidavit of disqualification; proceedings stayed under R.C. 2701.031.
- August 27, 2013: Angelo moved to terminate the no-contact order; September 4, 2013: court stated it could not modify during pendency of the affidavit; Angelo appealed but record not filed.
- Court grants motion to dismiss; Angelo had an adequate remedy on appeal and failed to establish a clear right to mandamus; failure to comply with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) also noted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is proper to terminate the no-contact order while an affidavit of disqualification is pending. | Angelo argues the modification is ministerial and should be compelled. | Respondent argues modification is not ministerial and requires judicial discretion. | Not proper; mandamus denied. |
| Whether modifying community-control sanctions is a ministerial act that the court could compel. | Angelo contends it affects no substantive rights and is ministerial. | Judge’s action on sanctions is discretionary and substantive. | Not ministerial; court has discretion. |
| Whether Angelo had an adequate remedy at law through appeal. | Angelo could appeal the denial of modification. | Adequate remedy exists; mandamus precluded. | Adequate remedy precludes mandamus. |
| Whether Angelo complied with Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) affidavit-detail requirements. | Angelo disputes need for detailed affidavit. | Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Ct. of Common Pleas requires specificity. | Failure to provide required detail supports dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus, 33 Ohio St.3d 118 (1987) (mandamus standards and limits (posture))
- State ex rel. Keenan v. Calabrese, 69 Ohio St.3d 176 (1994) (mandamus not substitute for appeal)
- State ex rel. Daggett v. Gessaman, 34 Ohio St.2d 55 (1973) (mandamus relief requirements)
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967) (mandamus limitations)
- State ex rel. Tran v. McGrath, 78 Ohio St.3d 45 (1997) (adequate remedy precludes mandamus)
- State ex rel. Boardwalk Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga Cty., 56 Ohio St.3d 33 (1990) (proper mandamus scope; remedy in law)
- State ex rel. Hemsley v. Unruh, 128 Ohio St.3d 307 (2011) (authority to proceed after notice when term expires)
- Toledo v. Parra, 2013-Ohio-3182 (6th Dist. Lucas) (municipal court jurisdiction over criminal violations from domestic-relations orders)