State ex rel. Sands v. Culotta (Slip Opinion), 2019 Ohio 4741

In 2006 Sands received a 20-year prison sentence; in 2015 he sought relief and the appellate court partially vacated and remanded for resentencing.
On remand the trial court held a hearing and issued a nunc pro tunc entry correcting postrelease-control language; the court of appeals later affirmed that entry.
In January 2018 Sands filed a mandamus petition in the court of appeals against Judge Culotta (and named the prosecutor but made no claim against him), arguing the nunc pro tunc entry was not a final, appealable order because it omitted manner of conviction and sentence in violation of Crim.R. 32(C).
Sands sought an order compelling a new sentencing hearing and a final, appealable judgment entry.
The court of appeals dismissed the petition under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for two reasons: Sands’s affidavit of indigency failed to include the cashier-certified six-month balance required by R.C. 2969.25(C), and Sands had an adequate remedy at law by pursuing a direct appeal.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Compliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) affidavit requirements	Sands submitted an affidavit of indigency but did not include a cashier-certified six-month account statement	Appellees argued the affidavit failed the statute and that noncompliance requires dismissal	Court: Affirmed dismissal—statutory requirements are mandatory; Sands failed to include the certified six-month balances
Adequacy of remedy at law (mandamus vs. appeal)	Sands sought mandamus to compel a new sentencing hearing and a final order	Appellees: Sands had an adequate remedy by direct appeal	Court: Mandamus denied because direct appeal was an adequate remedy
Whether R.C. 2969.25(C) noncompliance can be raised by motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6)	Sands argued that basis for dismissal isn't listed in Civ.R. 12(B) so appellees could not raise it	Appellees relied on statutory noncompliance despite the rule's listed grounds	Court: Statutory dismissal requirement controls; raising noncompliance in a motion to dismiss was proper and dismissal review is de novo

State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (Ohio 2012) (elements required for a writ of mandamus)
State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409 (Ohio 2006) (standard for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
State ex rel. McKinney v. Schmenk, 152 Ohio St.3d 70 (Ohio 2017) (de novo review of Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissals)
State ex rel. Neil v. French, 153 Ohio St.3d 271 (Ohio 2018) (R.C. 2969.25 requirements are mandatory)
State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 140 Ohio St.3d 297 (Ohio 2014) (failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 requires dismissal)
State ex rel. Qualls v. Story, 104 Ohio St.3d 343 (Ohio 2004) (affirming dismissal for noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25)