2020 Ohio 4777
Ohio2020Background
- May 25, 2017: Martre was arrested; police seized and searched his cell phone and later filed a supplemental report stating the search was pursuant to a warrant. Data from the phone led to a pandering charge.
- Martre initially pleaded no-contest, then moved to withdraw his plea; at the withdrawal hearing testimony suggested counsel misinformed him, the phone was searched before a warrant was obtained, and the warrant was absent from the record. The trial court denied the motion.
- The court of appeals affirmed the conviction; Martre filed multiple state appeals (two declined, one dismissed as untimely) and multiple postconviction motions, all unsuccessful.
- After conviction he obtained a copy of the search warrant which he alleges shows the detective lied and that the warrant was defective; he filed seven unsuccessful motions in the trial court to address the issue.
- December 2019: Martre filed an original mandamus action in the court of appeals seeking to have the certified search warrant added to the criminal record and related relief; the court dismissed the mandamus complaint, finding an adequate remedy at law. Martre timely appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding Martre had an adequate remedy at law (could have raised the issue on direct appeal or in a petition to vacate the plea and that App.R. 9(E) provides an adequate procedure to correct record issues), so mandamus was unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Martre) | Defendant's Argument (Reed) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel inclusion of the search warrant in the criminal record | Mandamus should compel the trial court to add the certified warrant to the record and correct the record so his plea/conviction can be reviewed | Martre had adequate remedies at law (direct appeal, petition to vacate plea, App.R. 9(E)); mandamus is not appropriate | Mandamus was not available; adequate legal remedies existed, so dismissal was proper |
| Whether Martre’s prior unsuccessful motions exhaust remedies and thereby support mandamus | Exhaustion shows no other remedy remained | Prior invocation (and failure) of ordinary remedies demonstrates an adequate remedy at law, barring mandamus | Court rejected exhaustion argument; prior remedies show mandamus inappropriate |
| Whether Martre’s allegation that he lacks an adequate remedy is sufficient to survive a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal | Allegation of no adequate remedy should be presumed true for pleading purposes | Unsupported legal conclusions are not presumed true on a motion to dismiss | Court held legal-conclusion assertions about lack of remedy are insufficient; dismissal appropriate |
| Whether earlier cases permitting mandamus to correct records (e.g., Worcester) control | Worcester and similar cases allow mandamus to force record corrections | Subsequent jurisprudence limits Worcester; App.R. 9(E) provides an adequate remedy for correcting appellate-record disputes | Court held App.R. 9(E) and other remedies foreclose mandamus for record correction in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 960 N.E.2d 452 (Ohio 2012) (elements required for writ of mandamus)
- State ex rel. Natl. Elec. Contrs. Assn., Ohio Conference v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Servs., 699 N.E.2d 64 (Ohio 1998) (standard for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- Alford v. Collins-McGregor Operating Co., 95 N.E.3d 382 (Ohio 2018) (de novo review of dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 532 N.E.2d 753 (Ohio 1988) (unsupported legal conclusions are not presumed true on a motion to dismiss)
- State ex rel. Worcester v. Donnellon, 551 N.E.2d 183 (Ohio 1990) (historical recognition of mandamus to correct records; later limited)
- State ex rel. Marshall v. Glavas, 784 N.E.2d 97 (Ohio 2003) (App.R. 9(E) provides an adequate remedy for correcting appellate-record disputes)
- State ex rel. McDonald v. Mitrovich, 863 N.E.2d 172 (Ohio 2007) (mandamus not available to relitigate issues after invocation of ordinary remedies)
- State ex rel. Neff v. Corrigan, 661 N.E.2d 170 (Ohio 1996) (limiting Worcester)