2018 Ohio 4028
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Relator Paul Buehler, an inmate, filed a mandamus petition to compel the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to provide accurate, certified copies of the jury verdict forms from his 1985 criminal case (State v. Buehler, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-85-199866-B).
- The state moved for summary judgment arguing impossibility and procedural defects; Buehler did not oppose the motion.
- The assigned trial judge (Judge Deena Calabrese) and the Clerk’s Criminal Division manager submitted affidavits stating that neither the judge’s office nor the clerk’s office currently possess any completed jury verdict forms for the case.
- The court found the requested records are not in the respondent’s possession or control, making compulsion impossible.
- The petition was procedurally defective: it was improperly captioned (styled as State of Ohio v. Paul Buehler rather than the State on relation of Buehler), and it was filed as a motion rather than a petition.
- Buehler failed to file the certified inmate-account statement required by R.C. 2969.25(C); the court treated that omission as a separate, independent basis to deny relief and assess costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court can compel production of jury verdict forms | Buehler sought certified copies of jury verdict forms | Judge and Clerk attest they do not possess the completed verdict forms | Denied — mandamus will not compel records not in custodian's possession or control |
| Whether improper captioning bars the petition | Buehler filed under caption "State of Ohio v. Paul Buehler" | State argued caption must be "State on relation of" and identify respondent | Denied — improper captioning suffices to dismiss mandamus for uncertainty of respondent |
| Whether a mandamus may be commenced by motion | Buehler filed his request as a motion | State noted mandamus must be by petition under R.C. 2731.04 | Denied — mandamus cannot be commenced by motion |
| Whether failure to file inmate-account certification forecloses relief | Buehler did not submit certified six-month account statement | State invoked R.C. 2969.25(C) noncompliance as fatal | Denied — failure to comply is independently sufficient to deny mandamus and assess costs |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Fant v. Mengel, 62 Ohio St.3d 197 (1991) (mandamus will not issue to compel records not in custodian's possession)
- Myles v. Wyatt, 62 Ohio St.3d 191 (1991) (mandamus cannot be commenced by motion)
- Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty., 173 Ohio St. 226 (1962) (failure to properly caption a mandamus petition warrants dismissal)
- State ex rel. Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio St.3d 492 (2006) (failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 bars relief and may preclude indigency status)
- State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 88 Ohio St.3d 176 (2000) (same—requirements of inmate financial disclosure are mandatory)
- Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22 (2011) (inmate noncompliance with filing requirements cannot be cured by later filings)