State v. Russell
2017 Ohio 7198
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Christopher M. Russell was convicted at jury trial of multiple sexual offenses and sentenced to 75 years; this court affirmed on direct appeal in 2012.
- On May 4, 2015 Russell filed a motion for declaratory judgments in the trial court alleging prosecutorial misconduct by prosecutors David Andrew Wilson and Lisa Fannin and seeking declarations about the legality/admissibility of certain trial acts and evidence.
- Russell stated he did not seek relief from the judgment but wanted declarations to restore his ability to appeal and to use in collateral proceedings; he attached portions of the trial transcript and asked Judge O’Neill to recuse.
- The trial court denied the motion as "not well taken" without analysis on July 27, 2016. Russell appealed that denial.
- The State argued declaratory relief cannot be used to collaterally attack a criminal conviction or replace available remedies (direct appeal, post-conviction, habeas, motion to vacate).
Issues
| Issue | Russell's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a declaratory judgment under R.C. 2721.03 can be used to obtain findings that prosecutorial acts at trial were unlawful and thereby restore appellate/collateral rights | Russell argued his motion sought only legal declarations about prosecutors' misconduct (not direct relief) to create tools for reopening appellate/collateral review and to remedy ineffective appellate counsel | The State argued declaratory judgment is not a substitute for direct appeal or established collateral remedies and may not be used to attack final criminal judgments | Court held declaratory judgment was improper to relitigate issues already adjudicated on direct appeal or that are the proper subject of appeal/post-conviction; Russell's claims are barred by res judicata and not within the spirit of R.C. 2721.03 |
| Whether Judge Richard O’Neill should have recused or been required to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law in denying the motion | Russell contended the judge should have recused because the motion reflected poorly on his prior gatekeeping and the denial entry showed judicial unwillingness; he also argued the entry was not a final appealable order without findings | The State noted Russell failed to follow R.C. 2701.03 (the exclusive statutory procedure for judge disqualification) and that findings were not required here (those statutes apply to post-conviction relief) | Court held recusal was not warranted because Russell did not follow the mandatory disqualification procedure; Clark and Mapson were inapposite; the trial court's denial was a final appealable order and did not require findings of fact and conclusions of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Lingo v. State, 138 Ohio St.3d 427 (Ohio 2014) (Declaratory Judgment Act cannot be used to substitute for criminal appeals or collateral remedies)
- Mid-American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Heasley, 113 Ohio St.3d 133 (Ohio 2007) (purpose of Declaratory Judgments Act is to eliminate uncertainty about legal rights quickly)
- State ex rel. Ferrell v. Clark, 13 Ohio St.3d 3 (Ohio 1984) (post-conviction relief denials require findings and conclusions under R.C. 2953.21(H))
- State v. Mapson, 1 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1982) (same statutory requirement for findings in post-conviction proceedings)
- Jones v. Billingham, 105 Ohio App.3d 8 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (R.C. 2701.03 provides the exclusive means to challenge a common pleas judge for bias or prejudice)