State ex rel. Davies v. Schroeder (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 1045

In 2000 Davies was convicted in Ashtabula County and ordered to pay a fine and court costs.
The conviction was vacated at the state’s request on April 15, 2013; Davies then moved (Apr. 29, 2013) for return of fines and costs. The trial court denied that motion on Oct. 10, 2013; Davies did not appeal that denial.
In April 2017 Davies filed, among other motions, a motion to vacate the 2013 judgment denying reimbursement, relying on Nelson v. Colorado and due-process principles. The trial court initially did not rule on that motion.
On appeal the court of appeals held the merits were not before it because the trial court had not ruled on the 2017 motion.
In April 2019 Davies sought writs of mandamus and procedendo in the court of appeals to force the trial judge to grant his 2017 motion and to certify the refund amount; the trial judge then entered a May 6, 2019 denial of the 2017 motion.
The court of appeals dismissed Davies’s extraordinary-relief petition as moot and observed Davies had an available appeal; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding an appeal is an adequate remedy that bars mandamus/procedendo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nelson/Due Process requires refund of fines/costs after conviction vacated	Davies: Nelson and Due Process require return of fines and costs paid on vacated conviction	Schroeder: remedy and merits not properly before court; procedural routes available	Court did not decide Nelson claim on merits; dismissed because appeal was available
Whether mandamus or procedendo is proper when an appeal is available	Davies: needed extraordinary relief to obtain refund and certification	Schroeder: availability of appeal is an adequate remedy that precludes extraordinary relief	Appeal is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; mandamus/procedendo denied; judgment affirmed

Nelson v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 1249 (2017) (U.S. Supreme Court holding due process can require return of money following invalidated convictions)
State ex rel. Luoma v. Russo, 21 N.E.3d 305 (Ohio 2014) (availability of appeal precludes writ of procedendo)
State ex rel. Peoples v. Johnson, 97 N.E.3d 426 (Ohio 2017) (appeal is an adequate remedy even if unsuccessful)
State ex rel. Gaydosh v. Twinsburg, 757 N.E.2d 357 (Ohio 2001) (failure to pursue an available appeal does not make appeal inadequate)
State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 960 N.E.2d 452 (Ohio 2012) (elements required for mandamus relief)
State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 705 N.E.2d 1227 (Ohio 1999) (elements required for procedendo)
State ex rel. Daniels v. Russo, 123 N.E.3d 1011 (Ohio 2018) (orders denying reimbursement requests are final, appealable orders)