2020 Ohio 1638
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Relator Brandon Olmstead filed a writ of mandamus (Jan. 21, 2020) asking the court to vacate his judgment and resentence him, arguing counts 4 (complicity to possession of methamphetamine) and 5 (complicity to trafficking) should merge as allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25(A).
- He relied primarily on State v. Cabrales for the allied-offense analysis.
- The Ashland County Prosecutor, on behalf of Judge Ronald P. Forsthoefel, moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) (or convert to summary judgment).
- The court treated the motion as a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal and noted the standard for such dismissals in mandamus actions.
- The court found Cabrales had been overruled by State v. Johnson and that Olmstead had an adequate remedy at law by direct appeal (he had raised a related merger argument on direct appeal and lost).
- The court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the mandamus petition; costs were assessed to Olmstead.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Olmstead is entitled to a writ directing merger of counts 4 and 5 as allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25(A) | Olmstead argued the convictions are allied and must merge, relying on Cabrales | Prosecutor/Judge argued Cabrales was overruled by Johnson and thus Olmstead cannot rely on it | Denied — Cabrales no longer controls; mandamus not granted on that basis |
| Whether mandamus is available where relator had an adequate remedy by direct appeal | Olmstead sought extraordinary relief because trial court allegedly failed to merge offenses at sentencing | Respondent argued Olmstead had an adequate remedy by direct appeal (and in fact raised similar claims on direct appeal) | Denied — relator had an adequate remedy by appeal; mandamus is inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cabrales, 118 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 2008) (articulated an allied-offense test under R.C. 2941.25(A))
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2010) (overruled Cabrales and revised allied-offense analysis)
- State ex rel. Cowell v. Croce, 157 Ohio St.3d 103 (Ohio 2019) (reiterates that an adequate remedy by appeal bars extraordinary writs)
- State ex rel. Hudson v. Sutula, 131 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio 2012) (mandamus/procedendo will not issue if an adequate remedy by appeal exists)
- State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (Ohio 1983) (sets the three-element standard for mandamus relief)
- State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409 (Ohio 2006) (standard for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) in mandamus actions)
- State ex rel. Jelinek v. Schneider, 127 Ohio St.3d 332 (Ohio 2010) (reaffirms that extraordinary relief is unavailable when an ordinary remedy exists)