2013 Ohio 1907
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Thompson filed a mandamus action against the State of Ohio on December 11, 2012 seeking relief related to his underlying criminal case, State v. Thompson, CR-565050.
- In the underlying case, Thompson faced multiple charges including engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity and related offenses; he sought various procedural and recording remedies via mandamus.
- Thompson’s November 2, 2012 motions in the underlying case were argued on November 13, 2012; the trial court struck them, but no journal entries reflecting that decision were entered.
- Thompson had at times claimed pro se representation, later waiving counsel and indicating self-representation with advisory counsel; by March 1, 2013 he represented himself pro se.
- The court held that mandamus is not a substitute for appeal and may not control judicial discretion; it ultimately found the petition defective for procedural defects and moot because Thompson became pro se.
- The court granted the State’s summary judgment motion and denied the writ of mandamus, with Thompson to pay costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the mandamus petition procedurally defective? | Thompson | State | Petition defective; improper caption and insufficient verification |
| Does mandamus lie to compel journal entries or to supervise trial court discretion on motions? | Thompson | State | No; mandamus cannot control judicial discretion or compel rulings on motions |
| Can mandamus stay underlying proceedings or prohibit actions in the underlying case? | Thompson | State | Filing an original mandamus action does not automatically stay underlying proceedings; prohibitory relief not available |
| Does the relief sought require a timely, proper verification and caption under Ohio law? | Thompson | State | Yes; failure to properly caption and verify supports denial |
| Is the matter moot since Thompson proceeded pro se and the court could not grant mandamus relief? | Thompson | State | Matter moot; Thompson’s pro se representation cured the issue; no mandamus relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus, 33 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 1987) (mandamus scope and cautions)
- State ex rel. Keenan v. Calabrese, 69 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 1994) (mandamus not substitute for appeal)
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (Ohio 1967) (mandamus standard and discretionary relief)
- State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Gaughan, 8th Dist. No. 67787 (1994) (procedural defects and limits of mandamus)
- State ex rel. Rodgers v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 83 Ohio App.3d 684 (Ohio App.3d 1992) (when mandamus is appropriate to compel a court to rule)
- Griffin v. McFaul, 116 Ohio St.3d 30 (Ohio 2007) (verification and procedural defects standard)
- Chari v. Vore, 91 Ohio St.3d 323 (Ohio 2001) (definition of verification)
- Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty., 173 Ohio St.226 (Ohio 1962) (captioning requirement for mandamus)
- State ex rel. Calloway v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga Cty., 8th Dist. No. 71699 (1997) (captioning deficiency warrants dismissal)
- Eliza Jennings, Inc. v. Noble, 49 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (mootness and Article standards)