2022 Ohio 23
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Relator Todd L. Hatfield is a prisoner convicted in Franklin C.P. No. 03CR-905 of aggravated murder, tampering with evidence, and gross abuse of a corpse; he was resentenced multiple times after appeals.
- Hatfield previously sought transcripts of counsel's opening and closing arguments in post-conviction proceedings; the Tenth District affirmed denial (State v. Hatfield, 2012-Ohio-3473).
- In 2020 Hatfield filed an original action in mandamus asking the Tenth District to order Judge Jenifer French to: charge him with a crime under Crim.R. 3, analyze a bloody footprint/fingerprint, produce opening and closing arguments from his trial, and provide discovery materials.
- Judge French moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); she also sought leave to file the motion instanter. The magistrate recommended dismissal, finding Hatfield had an adequate remedy at law (appeal).
- The Tenth District overruled Hatfield’s objections, implicitly granted leave to file instanter, adopted the magistrate’s decision, granted the motion to dismiss, and denied the writ of mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether respondent's untimely motion to dismiss was properly before the magistrate | Hatfield: motion to dismiss was not properly before the magistrate due to untimeliness | French: moved for leave to file instanter and showed excusable neglect | Court: leave implicitly granted; motion properly considered |
| Whether Hatfield had an adequate remedy at law (precluding mandamus) | Hatfield: he lacks an adequate remedy because his prior appeal on the opening/closing transcripts was unsuccessful | French: Hatfield had and used appellate remedies; mandamus is not a substitute for appeal | Court: adequate remedy existed (appeal); prior unsuccessful appeal does not remove adequacy |
| Whether mandamus is proper to compel production of opening/closing arguments as public records | Hatfield: opening/closing are public records and mandamus should compel them | French: Hatfield is incarcerated; R.C. 149.43(B)(8) limits access absent judge’s finding; no R.C. 149.43 claim pled | Court: mandamus inappropriate; statutory limits apply and Hatfield did not allege required findings |
| Whether mandamus can be used to re-litigate discovery/Crim.R. 3 matters | Hatfield: seeks charging/discovery relief via mandamus | French: discovery and charging-instrument challenges are remedied by direct appeal | Court: mandamus unavailable where direct appeal is adequate remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Marshall v. Glavas, 98 Ohio St.3d 297 (2003) (mandamus is not a substitute for an unsuccessful direct appeal)
- State ex rel. Murr v. Thierry, 34 Ohio St.3d 45 (1987) (indigent defendant not entitled to trial transcript when no direct or collateral proceedings are pending)
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967) (elements required for issuance of a writ of mandamus)
- State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409 (2006) (standard for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) in mandamus actions)
- State ex rel. Fuqua v. Alexander, 79 Ohio St.3d 206 (1997) (limits on materials a court may consider on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion)
- State ex rel. Findlay Pub. Co. v. Schroeder, 76 Ohio St.3d 580 (1996) (courts may take judicial notice in resolving Civ.R. 12(B)(6) matters)
- State ex rel. Neguse v. McIntosh, 161 Ohio St.3d 125 (2020) (res judicata is an affirmative defense and cannot ordinarily be resolved on Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- State ex rel. Green v. Wetzel, 158 Ohio St.3d 104 (2019) (same rule regarding affirmative defenses on motion to dismiss)
- State ex rel. Sands v. Culotta, 158 Ohio St.3d 1 (2019) (mandamus will not lie to attack validity or sufficiency of a charging instrument)