State ex rel. Briscoe v. Matia
128 Ohio St. 3d 365
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Briscoe sought a writ of mandamus to compel transfer to the common pleas court for further proceedings in his criminal case under RC 2953.13.
- The remand proceedings followed this Court’s prior decisions reversing and then affirming in part Briscoe’s aggravated-robbery convictions.
- After remand, Judge Matia vacated the reversed aggravated-robbery count but kept the aggregate sentence of 28 years to life.
- Briscoe did not receive a new trial transfer, prompting a mandamus petition to the court of appeals.
- The court of appeals denied and dismissed the writ; Briscoe alleged structural error and sought new trial or dismissal.
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding Briscoe had an adequate ordinary remedy and that the petition failed on multiple grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus lies to compel transfer under RC 2953.13 | Briscoe seeks transfer to the common pleas court. | Matia/Warden argue no mandamus entitlement under RC 2953.13 because remand does not require transfer when remedies exist. | No mandamus relief required; remedy not warranted. |
| Whether Briscoe waived claims for new trial or dismissal | Briscoe raises need for new trial or dismissal due to structural error. | Waived because not pled in petition per Scruggs v. Sadler. | Waived claims; mandamus relief unsupported. |
| Whether remand language compelled a new trial or dismissal | Remand mandates new trial or dismissal for Briscoe’s entire case. | Remand did not require new trial or total dismissal; convictions for murder and one aggravated-robbery count upheld. | Remand did not compel new trial or dismissal. |
| Whether Briscoe had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law | Briscoe could appeal the remand decision. | Yes, via ordinary appeal rather than mandamus. | There was an adequate ordinary remedy; mandamus denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Scruggs v. Sadler, 102 Ohio St.3d 160 (2004-Ohio-2054) (waiver and pleading requirements for mandamus relief)
- State ex rel. Voleck v. Powhatan Point, 127 Ohio St.3d 299 (2010-Ohio-5679) (adequacy of ordinary remedy on mandamus)
- State ex rel. Gordon v. Murphy, 112 Ohio St.3d 329 (2006-Ohio-6572) (habeas corpus not mandamus; different remedy)
- State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466 (2010-Ohio-3830) (modifies earlier Briscoe scope on remand)
- State v. Segines, 2010-Ohio-5112 (Cuyahoga App. 2010) (appointment of remedy post-remand and implications)
- Briscoe, 124 Ohio St.3d 117 (2009-Ohio-6540) (affirmation of murder conviction and one aggravated-robbery count)