State ex rel. Tingler v. Howe-Gebers
2022 Ohio 2237
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background:
- In Feb. 2017 relator Charles Tingler contacted Port Clinton PD and filed a police report accusing Ottawa County Sheriff Stephen Levorchick of theft in office.
- Detective Corbin Carpenter investigated and forwarded the matter to the Ottawa County Prosecutor’s Office.
- A special prosecutor, Gwen Howe‑Gebers, was appointed on April 12, 2017.
- Tingler alleged Howe‑Gebers failed to present the case against Sheriff Levorchick to the Ottawa County Grand Jury and noted she had prosecuted Tingler twice in related matters.
- The attached Feb. 8, 2017 police report contained only Tingler’s referral and a summary that he reported an alleged theft—no factual allegations or evidence were provided.
- The court found Tingler’s petition for a writ of mandamus frivolous, held he could not show prosecutorial abuse of discretion, sua sponte dismissed the petition, and assessed costs against Tingler.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prosecutor has a clear legal duty to present charges to a grand jury (mandamus relief) | Tingler: Howe‑Gebers must present the case against Levorchick to the grand jury. | Howe‑Gebers: Prosecutors have discretion whether to prosecute; no clear duty absent abuse of discretion. | Court: Prosecutorial charging decisions are discretionary and not generally subject to mandamus; no clear duty shown. |
| Whether Tingler alleged sufficient facts to show prosecutorial abuse of discretion | Tingler: Alleged Levorchick committed theft in office. | Howe‑Gebers: Tingler offered only bare allegations; attached report lacks factual detail or evidence. | Court: Allegations and attached report are insufficient to demonstrate abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the petition is frivolous and subject to sua sponte dismissal | Tingler: Seeks writ because prosecutor declined to seek indictment. | Howe‑Gebers: Petition fails to state a claim and is frivolous. | Court: Petition is frivolous; sua sponte dismissal warranted; costs assessed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. A.N. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 175 N.E.3d 539 (Ohio 2021) (mandamus standard and limits on judicial review of prosecutorial discretion)
- State ex rel. Capron v. Dattilio, 50 N.E.3d 551 (Ohio 2016) (prosecution compelled only when failure to prosecute is abuse of discretion)
- State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland, 661 N.E.2d 180 (Ohio 1996) (prosecutorial charging decisions generally not subject to judicial review)
- State ex rel. Jones v. Garfield Hts. Mun. Court, 674 N.E.2d 1381 (Ohio 1997) (sua sponte dismissal without notice appropriate when complaint is frivolous)