2021 Ohio 1207
Ohio2021Background
- In March 2014 Michael Person was indicted on multiple felonies, including a kidnapping charge alleged in the alternative under R.C. 2905.01(A)(3) and (A)(4).
- At trial the jury convicted Person of kidnapping but did not indicate which statutory alternative it found; the jury was not asked to specify whether (A)(3), (A)(4), or both had been violated.
- Person did not raise the alleged ambiguity/unanimity issue on direct appeal; the Ninth District affirmed his convictions, and this court denied leave for a delayed appeal.
- In March 2020 Person filed a mandamus complaint asking the appellate court to order the trial judge to vacate his conviction and resentence him, asserting (1) the jury verdict lacked unanimity and (2) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue and for not advising him to seek reopening under App.R. 26(B).
- The court of appeals dismissed the mandamus complaint for failure to state a claim, holding Person had an adequate remedy at law via direct appeal and via App.R. 26(B) to raise appellate-ineffectiveness claims.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed, concluding mandamus was not appropriate because adequate remedies existed and therefore it was unnecessary to decide the unanimity question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is proper to attack an allegedly non‑unanimous jury verdict where the verdict did not specify which alternative offense was found | Person: jury failed to specify which alternative kidnapping offense, resulting in nonunanimous verdict and requiring relief | Judge/State: direct appeal is the proper and adequate remedy to challenge a jury‑verdict defect | Held: Mandamus denied; Person had an adequate remedy by direct appeal, so extraordinary relief is unavailable |
| Whether alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (failure to raise unanimity and failure to advise re: App.R. 26(B)) supports mandamus | Person: appellate counsel’s failures prevented him from pursuing the unanimous‑verdict claim, so mandamus relief is warranted | Judge/State: an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen an appeal is the adequate remedy for appellate‑counsel ineffectiveness; ineffective assistance does not create a separate mandamus path | Held: Mandamus denied; App.R. 26(B) (reopening) is the adequate remedy for appellate‑ineffectiveness claims, so mandamus is inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 960 N.E.2d 452 (Ohio 2012) (elements required to obtain a 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 reviewed and applied)
- State ex rel. Ullmann v. Hayes, 816 N.E.2d 245 (Ohio 2004) (mandamus will not lie where an adequate remedy at law exists)
- State ex rel. Chagrin Falls v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 775 N.E.2d 512 (Ohio 2002) (adequate remedy must be complete, beneficial, and speedy)
- State ex rel. Galloway v. Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 957 N.E.2d 11 (Ohio 2011) (direct appeal is adequate to challenge defects in a jury verdict)
- Perry v. Sloan, 77 N.E.3d 942 (Ohio 2017) (an App.R. 26(B) reopening is the adequate remedy for claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel)
- Alford v. Collins-McGregor Operating Co., 95 N.E.3d 382 (Ohio 2018) (de novo review of Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissals)