State ex rel. Boler v. McCarthy, 2023 Ohio 500

In 2009 a jury convicted Phillip Dionte Boler of aggravated robbery and complicity to commit murder, each with firearm specifications; he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 28 years to life.
In July 2022 Boler filed a complaint for writs of prohibition and mandamus in the Fourth District Court of Appeals against Judge George P. McCarthy seeking vacatur of his convictions, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction by misapplying R.C. 2911.01.
The court of appeals granted Judge McCarthy’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, reasoning Boler’s claim was barred by res judicata and that Boler had an adequate remedy by direct appeal.
The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the dismissal de novo, noting the court of appeals erred in dismissing on res judicata grounds because res judicata is an affirmative defense.
The Supreme Court nevertheless affirmed the dismissal because Boler had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law (he could have raised the statutory‑construction claim on direct appeal) and the trial court plainly had subject‑matter jurisdiction under R.C. 2931.03.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was proper on res judicata grounds	Boler contended his claim was jurisdictional and relief was appropriate; implicitly challenged the dismissal	Judge McCarthy argued res judicata barred the claim	Court: Dismissal on res judicata was error—res judicata is an affirmative defense not proper for 12(B)(6) dismissal
Whether Boler lacked an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law	Boler argued the trial court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction, so appeal was not an adequate remedy	McCarthy argued Boler could have raised the statutory‑construction claim on direct appeal	Court: Boler had an adequate remedy (direct appeal); dismissal otherwise proper
Whether the "patent and unambiguous" lack‑of‑jurisdiction exception applies	Boler asserted the trial court’s misapplication of R.C. 2911.01 patently and unambiguously deprived it of jurisdiction	McCarthy argued the common pleas court had subject‑matter jurisdiction over felonies	Court: Exception does not apply—no patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction shown
Whether the trial court had subject‑matter jurisdiction over Boler’s criminal case	Boler claimed misapplication of the statute removed jurisdiction	McCarthy pointed to R.C. 2931.03 granting common pleas courts felony jurisdiction	Court: Trial court plainly had subject‑matter jurisdiction under R.C. 2931.03

State ex rel. Natl. Elec. Contrs. Assn., Ohio Conference v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Servs., [citation="83 Ohio St.3d 179"] (1998) (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal standard and factual‑allegations treated as true)
State ex rel. Brown v. Nusbaum, [citation="152 Ohio St.3d 284"] (2017) (de novo review of dismissal of a mandamus/prohibition complaint)
State ex rel. Elder v. Camplese, [citation="144 Ohio St.3d 89"] (2015) (standards for writ of prohibition and adequate‑remedy requirement)
State ex rel. Love v. O’Donnell, [citation="150 Ohio St.3d 378"] (2017) (standards for writ of mandamus)
State ex rel. Newell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, [citation="165 Ohio St.3d 341"] (2021) (res judicata is an affirmative defense and not a proper basis for 12(B)(6) dismissal)
State ex rel. Dannaher v. Crawford, [citation="78 Ohio St.3d 391"] (1997) (patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction exception to adequate‑remedy rule)
Ohio High School Athletic Assn. v. Ruehlman, [citation="157 Ohio St.3d 296"] (2019) (courts of common pleas patently lack jurisdiction only when statute explicitly removes it)