2019 Ohio 1298
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Relator Michael G. Hines, Jr., a prisoner serving an aggregate 10-year sentence after guilty pleas in multiple Lake County cases, filed a "Writ and Motion for Procedendo" seeking copies of original trial papers, certified docket/journal entries, and full discovery/transcripts purportedly under App.R. 9(A).
- Hines previously received direct appeal; his sentence was affirmed in earlier appeals to this court.
- Hines filed an Affidavit of Indigency and motion to waive costs but did not include the inmate-account balance certified by the institutional cashier and did not list prior civil actions as required by R.C. 2969.25.
- Judge Eugene A. Lucci (respondent) moved to dismiss, arguing Hines failed to satisfy mandatory statutory filing requirements and lacked a clear legal right to the relief sought.
- The court considered whether procedendo was available when a trial court has purportedly refused or delayed a judgment and whether Hines had an appeal or postconviction matter pending that would entitle him to a transcript at state expense.
- The court granted the motion and dismissed Hines’ procedendo petition for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25 and for lack of entitlement to the requested records/transcripts given no pending appeal/postconviction proceeding and prior receipt of a single transcript copy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hines complied with R.C. 2969.25 prerequisites for inmate civil filings | Hines filed an affidavit of indigency and sought waiver of fees | Judge Lucci: Hines failed to list prior civil actions and did not include certified account balances | Dismissal required for noncompliance; R.C. 2969.25 mandates those filings |
| Whether procedendo is available to compel provision of trial records/transcripts | Hines sought original papers, certified docket/journal entries, and full discovery under App.R. 9(A) | Lucci: App.R.9(A) only defines the record on appeal; does not create entitlement to copies outside an appeal | Hines has no clear legal right because App.R.9(A) doesn’t entitle him to state-funded copies absent appeal/postconviction |
| Whether an indigent prisoner is entitled to state-provided transcripts when no appeal or postconviction proceeding is pending | Hines argued entitlement to transcripts/records generally under precedent | Lucci: Indigent-transcript entitlement requires a pending appeal/postconviction and provision of only one copy | Court held entitlement requires a pending appeal/postconviction; Hines had neither and already received one copy previously |
| Whether dismissal is proper under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for procedendo petition | Hines sought extraordinary relief and procedural compliance | Lucci: Even assuming facts, Hines could prove no entitlement to procedendo relief given statutory noncompliance and lack of pending appeal | Petition fails to state a claim for procedendo; dismissal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Reynolds v. Basinger, 99 Ohio St.3d 303 (2003) (procedendo lies when a trial court refuses or unduly delays rendering judgment)
- State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (1995) (writ of procedendo requires clear legal right and no adequate remedy at law)
- State ex rel. Agosto v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 119 Ohio St.3d 366 (2008) (procedendo petitions reviewed under failure-to-state-a-claim standard)
- State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 140 Ohio St.3d 297 (2014) (R.C. 2969.25 requirements are mandatory; failure mandates dismissal)
- Rogers v. Eppinger, 154 Ohio St.3d 189 (2018) (dismissal proper where relator failed to attach inmate account statement required by R.C. 2969.25(C))
- State v. Henton, 146 Ohio St.3d 9 (2016) (compliance with R.C. 2969.25(A) is mandatory)
- State ex rel. Murr v. Thierry, 34 Ohio St.3d 45 (1987) (indigent prisoner entitled to transcript for appeal or postconviction relief, but only one copy and only if proceeding pending)
- State ex rel. Ralston v. Hill, 65 Ohio St.2d 58 (1981) (state must provide an indigent defendant a single trial transcript for effective appeal)
- State ex rel. Perdue v. Court of Common Pleas, 61 Ohio St.2d 34 (1980) (relator not entitled to state-funded copies when state remedies exhausted and no appeal pending)
- State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 84 Ohio St.3d 252 (1998) (court may take judicial notice of docket entries to dismiss procedendo as moot)