State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer, 2015 Ohio 3662

Relator Paul Edward Bunting, serving a long prison sentence, alleged his van and motorcycle were stolen after he gave his mother power of attorney and she arranged storage at a family friend's farm.
After his mother died, communication with the family friend stopped; Bunting accused the friend and his daughter of forging titles and selling the vehicles and filed an affidavit under R.C. 2935.09.
The New Philadelphia Municipal Court referred the matter to the Tuscarawas County Prosecutor under R.C. 2935.10; the prosecutor directed the sheriff's office to investigate.
The sheriff's investigation found the van at the impound lot and concluded there was no evidence of theft or forgery regarding the motorcycle (witnesses reported a barn fire destroying parts, and CAD records corroborated the fire).
The prosecutor declined to file charges; Bunting sought a writ of mandamus compelling the prosecutor to present his investigation results to the municipal court.
The court considered dismissal for failure to state a claim, concluding Bunting failed to show an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor must present investigative findings to the referring court	Bunting asked the court to order the prosecutor to present his findings to the municipal court for review	Prosecutor argued he conducted an investigation and has discretion whether to prosecute; no duty to present findings to the court	Court held no authority requires the prosecutor to present findings; dismissed claim
Whether failure to prosecute can be compelled	Bunting argued prosecutor abused discretion by declining to file charges	Prosecutor argued decision to prosecute is discretionary and was not abused given investigative results	Court held prosecution is discretionary and only reviewable for abuse of discretion; none shown
Whether the referral procedure under R.C. 2935.10 mandated prosecution	Bunting implied referral required further action by prosecutor beyond investigation	Prosecutor relied on R.C. 2935.10 and case law showing referral triggers investigation, not automatic prosecution	Court held R.C. 2935.10 requires investigation, not mandatory prosecution
Whether the complaint stated a claim for mandamus relief	Bunting sought writ based on his affidavit and referral	Prosecutor maintained the investigation found no evidence to support charges, defeating mandamus claim	Court dismissed for failure to state a claim — no factual basis for abuse of discretion

State ex rel. Bruggeman v. Ingraham, 87 Ohio St.3d 230 (Ohio 1999) (sua sponte dismissal appropriate when complaint is frivolous or claimant cannot prevail)
State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen, 88 Ohio St.3d 313 (Ohio 2000) (same principle on dismissal for failure to state a claim)
State ex rel. Strothers v. Turner, 79 Ohio St.3d 272 (Ohio 1997) (R.C. 2935.09 must be read with R.C. 2935.10; affidavit does not mandate prosecution)
State ex rel. Evans v. Columbus Dept. of Law, 83 Ohio St.3d 174 (Ohio 1998) (prosecutors have no duty to prosecute misdemeanors charged by affidavit)
State ex rel. Squire v. Taft, 69 Ohio St.3d 365 (Ohio 1994) (failure to prosecute is reviewable only when it constitutes an abuse of discretion)
State ex rel. Murr v. Meyer, 34 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 1987) (same on prosecutorial discretion)
State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland, 75 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 1996) (decision whether to prosecute is discretionary and generally not subject to judicial review)