2020 Ohio 4274
Ohio2020Background
- Hill was convicted in 2005 of three counts of aggravated robbery with firearm specifications and sentenced to over 30 years; this court vacated and remanded his sentence in In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases, and on remand he was resentenced to the same terms.
- Hill contends at the resentencing he was not properly advised of his appellate rights or of postrelease control and sought resentencing relief to obtain a new appeal opportunity.
- In July 2019 Hill moved for resentencing; Judge Lindsay Navarre (who succeeded the original sentencing judge) denied the motion in October 2019.
- Hill filed a mandamus petition in the Sixth District (Feb. 2020) seeking to compel resentencing; the Sixth District denied the writ as Hill had an adequate remedy by appeal and found his filings repetitious, ordering the clerk to require security for future original actions or appeals by Hill.
- Hill appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court; the Court affirmed the Sixth District, denied his motion to strike/abandon as moot, and declared Hill a vexatious litigator, restricting his ability to file pro se in the Supreme Court without prior leave.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is available to compel resentencing | Hill: He has a clear right to be resentenced because he was not informed of appeal rights/postrelease control | Navarre: Hill had an adequate remedy by appeal from the October 2019 denial; mandamus is not a substitute | Mandamus denied — Hill had an adequate remedy by appeal; writ inappropriate |
| Whether Hill's "Motion for Leave to Strike and/or Abandon" should be granted | Hill: Seeks to strike or abandon propositions II and III as premature | Navarre: Not necessary; abandonment can be accomplished by Hill's reply statement | Denied as moot — Hill may abandon arguments by stating so in his briefs |
| Whether Hill should be declared a vexatious litigator and restricted from filing | Hill: (implicitly) challenges not meritorious; requests not addressed here | Navarre: Hill repeatedly files duplicative, meritless actions and should be barred from filing without security or leave | Court declared Hill a vexatious litigator and prohibited him from instituting or continuing proceedings in the Supreme Court pro se without first obtaining leave (narrower than Navarre sought) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases, 110 Ohio St.3d 156 (vacating sentence and remanding for resentencing)
- State ex rel. Bevins v. Cooper, 150 Ohio St.3d 22 (mandamus elements and requirement of adequate remedy in ordinary course of law)
- State ex rel. Daniels v. Russo, 156 Ohio St.3d 143 (explaining appeal is the proper remedy for sentencing-postrelease-control claims)
- State ex rel. Cowell v. Croce, 157 Ohio St.3d 103 (mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal)