State ex rel. Cowell v. Croce (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8132

Joshua R. Cowell pleaded guilty in 2011 to aggravated burglary, felonious assault, rape, and kidnapping and was sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 25 years; the trial court found the offenses were not allied under R.C. 2941.25.
In June 2016 Cowell filed a mandamus/procedendo complaint in the Ninth District seeking relief from his sentence as void, arguing (1) the offenses were allied and (2) the trial court failed to make required findings for consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
Cowell submitted two affidavits with the complaint, including a combined inmate affidavit under R.C. 2969.21 et seq. and a request to waive costs.
R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) requires an in forma pauperis inmate to file with the complaint an affidavit of indigency and a certified inmate-account statement showing the balance for each of the preceding six months.
Cowell’s certified account statement covered the six-month period ending March 10, 2016, but his complaint was filed in June 2016; the Ninth District dismissed his complaint for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C).
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding Cowell’s deficient certified account statement violated R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) and required dismissal; a subsequent filing did not cure the defect, and the court did not need to reach the other statutory-compliance issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cowell complied with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1)’s requirement to file a certified six‑month inmate‑account statement with his complaint	Cowell argued his filing satisfied requirements and the court should consider his merits arguments that the sentence is void	The appellee argued Cowell’s certified statement did not cover the six months immediately preceding the June 2016 filing, so statutory filing requirements were unmet	Court held Cowell failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1); dismissal was required and could not be cured by later filing
Whether the court had to hold a hearing before dismissing under R.C. 2969.24(C)	Cowell contended a hearing was required before dismissal	Appellee argued R.C. 2969.24(C) governs dismissal for false or frivolous filings, not for deficient information	Court held no hearing was required because dismissal was based on insufficient information, not falsehood or frivolity

State ex rel. Bates v. Eppinger, 147 Ohio St.3d 355 (2016) (an inmate’s failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) requires dismissal and cannot be cured by a later filing)