State ex rel. Cain v. Gee (Slip Opinion)
147 Ohio St. 3d 477
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Petitioner Justin L. Cain filed an original-action petition for a writ of mandamus in the Second District Court of Appeals seeking an order requiring Judge Christopher Gee to "grant him an appeal as of right" in an underlying criminal case and to appoint appellate counsel.
- The court of appeals dismissed Cain's petition, concluding he could not prevail as a matter of law and additionally dismissing the claim against the Miami County Court of Common Pleas because a common pleas court is not sui juris.
- Cain sought review in the Ohio Supreme Court challenging the dismissal and asking for the writ against Judge Gee and the common pleas court.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the standards for mandamus: clear legal right, clear legal duty, and lack of adequate remedy at law; burden is clear and convincing evidence.
- The Court held Cain did not need a writ to exercise his right to appeal, no authority imposes a duty on the trial judge to "grant permission" to appeal, and Cain had an adequate remedy (direct appeal or a motion for delayed appeal under App.R. 5).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus can compel judge to "grant an appeal as of right" | Cain: judge must grant permission to appeal and appoint counsel | Judge/State: no authority requires judge to grant permission; no duty exists | Denied — no duty to grant; mandamus not available |
| Whether trial judge has clear legal duty to allow or permit appeal | Cain: judge's action is required to effectuate appeal rights | State: appeal is exercised through filing; judge need not authorize it | Denied — appellate rules and law impose no such duty |
| Whether Cain lacks an adequate remedy at law (thus mandamus proper) | Cain: without writ he cannot pursue appeal now | State: Cain had adequate remedies — direct appeal or motion for delayed appeal (App.R. 5) | Denied — adequate remedies available |
| Whether the common pleas court is a proper mandamus respondent (sui juris) | Cain: named court should be ordered as respondent | State: common pleas court is not sui juris; improper respondent | Petition dismissed as to the court for that reason |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (mandamus standards and burden of proof)
- State ex rel. Schneider v. N. Olmsted City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 65 Ohio St.3d 348 (1992) (adequacy of remedy at law bars mandamus when appeal is available)
- State ex rel. Cartmell v. Dorrian, 11 Ohio St.3d 177 (1984) (availability of appellate remedies precludes mandamus)
- State ex rel. Ahmed v. Costine, 103 Ohio St.3d 166 (2004) (motion for delayed appeal under App.R. 5 is an adequate remedy in criminal cases)