State v. Askew, 89 N.E.3d 55

James D. Askew pleaded guilty to felonious assault with a repeat violent-offender specification and was sentenced to a total of 15 years; he did not appeal the conviction.
Askew filed two postconviction petitions within the first 13 months; both were denied, and this court affirmed the second denial in a prior appeal.
About a year after that appellate decision, Askew sought from the trial-court clerk a copy of a September 27, 2012 judgment entry he says shows he waived arraignment.
He stated he needed the record to assert due-process, jurisdictional, and ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.
The trial court denied the public-records request under R.C. 149.43(B)(8), finding Askew failed to show a justiciable claim or that the record was necessary to support one.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 149.43(B)(8) required production of public records for an incarcerated requester	The clerk should produce the requested entry because Askew presented jurisdictional/due-process issues that make the record necessary	Askew argued he needs the judgment entry to support claims of waived arraignment and ineffective assistance of counsel	The court held the statute allows denial unless the sentencing judge finds the record necessary to support a justiciable claim; Askew failed to allege a justiciable claim or explain how the record was necessary, so denial was proper

State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409 (2006) (discusses legislative intent to limit incarcerated persons’ access to records relating to their prosecutions)
State ex rel. Fernbach v. Brush, 133 Ohio St.3d 151 (2012) (explains requirement that sentencing judge find requested information necessary to support an apparent justiciable claim)