State ex rel. Bradley v. Astrab, 2012 Ohio 4610

Bradley, an inmate, filed a mandamus action against Judge Astrab to compel compliance with the speedy-trial provisions, RC 2945.71–2945.73, in State v. Bradley, CR-559416.
Bradley was arrested February 1, 2012, on felonious assault and domestic violence charges; bail was set at $25,000 but bond was not posted.
The trial court repeatedly continued pretrials; some continuances were for the state's or defense's requests and included stated reasons, but others lacked reasons in the journal entries.
On May 3, 2012, a trial date was set for July 16, 2012, and Bradley filed speedy-trial motions beginning May 3 and subsequent dates.
On July 23, 2012, the court denied Bradley’s motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial after an independent docket review showing 17 days remaining, excluding writ and pro se motions, and granted Bradley a new attorney tolling speedy-trial time.
The mandamus action sought to require the trial court to resolve motions and provide explicit rulings, but the court ultimately dismissed the complaint for lack of mandamus relief and noted deficiencies in Bradley’s affidavits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus is proper to enforce speedy-trial compliance	Bradley seeks mandamus to compel speedy-trial performance.	Mandamus is improper; appeal is the proper remedy for speedy-trial issues.	Mandamus not issued; appeal is proper remedy.
Whether trial continuances lacked required reasons and violated Mincy/Siler standards	Continued orders lacked stated reasons for continuances.	Some reasons were provided; the motions were addressed; not all issues warrant mandamus relief.	Court affirmed dismissal; mandamus not appropriate to correct continuance defects.
Whether Bradley's motions and filings required notarized affidavits under Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a)	Affidavits should support the mandamus complaint.	Bradley failed to provide properly notarized affidavits; defects warrant dismissal.	Affidavit defects support dismissal.
Whether the court should issue mandamus to compel explicit rulings on motions	Bradley seeks explicit rulings on several motions.	The vague demand and rulings already addressed; mandamus not appropriate to force explicit rulings.	Writ denied for lack of mandamus to compel explicit rulings.

State ex rel. Dix v. Angelotta, 18 Ohio St.3d 115 (1985) (appeal is proper remedy for speedy-trial issues)
State ex rel. Hamilton v. Brunner, 105 Ohio St.3d 304 (2005) (speedy-trial issues addressed on appeal)
State ex rel. Keenan v. Calabrese, 69 Ohio St.3d 176 (1994) (mandamus not substitute for appeal; discretionary relief)
State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967) (considerations for granting mandamus writ)
State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Gaughan, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 6227 (1994) (procedural irregularities not subject to mandamus remedy)
Bradley v. Bradley, 123 Ohio St.3d 124 (2009) (affidavit requirements under Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a))
Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22 (2011) (defects in poverty affidavits; cure not retroactive)
State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 124 (2009) (not notarized affidavit insufficient to proceed)
State ex rel. Mincy v. State, 2 Ohio St.3d 6 (1982) (speedy-trial continuance require reasons in journal entry)
State v. Siler, 57 Ohio St.2d 1 (1979) (reasons for continuances must be stated)