State ex rel. Dehler v. Kelly
939 N.E.2d 828
Ohio
2010
Check Treatment

*1 1212, 17-18; and Bar Columbus Assn. Moushey, Having imposed reviewed the record and the sanctions comparable conduct and the aggravating considered factors and the complete absence of evidence, fact, mitigating adopt findings we the board’s conclusions and recommended sanction. Accordingly, John Patrick Hildebrand Jr. is permanently disbarred practice law the state of respondent. Ohio. Costs are taxed to

Judgment accordingly. J., Stratton, O’Connor, Lanzinger, C. JJ., J., dissents and would indefinitely

O’Donnell, suspend respondent from practice law Ohio. Sanders, Squire, L.L.P., Dempsey, Haverstiek, & Rebecca W. and Robert E. Haffke, for relator. Dehler, Appellant,

Kelly, Warden, Kelly, [Cite as State ex rel. Dehler v. 2010-Ohio-5724.] (No. 2010.) 2010-1229 Submitted October 2010 Decided December Per Curiam. We affirm appeals denying an award of in a public-records case for the following reasons. cost of the for the payment refused to submit

(¶ require a custodian “R.C. 149.43 does not records. *2 instead, free of charge; of records provide copies to made at cost.” State be available only public that records requires Fragale, 104 Ohio St.3d rel. Call v. on to appeals rely ground Even the court though “ judgment simply a correct damages, will not reverse for ‘[w]e ” are erroneous.’ or all of a lower court’s reasons because some ¶4, 332, 2010-Ohio-3780, Cook,

Galloway Bartleson, 125, 2009-Ohio-4690,914 123 Ohio St.3d ex rel. Swain quoting State 403, 1. Moreover, to permitting officials prison established {¶3} unreasonably interfered with might inspect requested 127 Ohio St.3d of their duties. See State discharge Co., 2010-Ohio-5711, N.E.2d —, Broadcasting rel. Natl. citing State ex (1988), and Briscoe v. Ohio Inc. Cleveland Corr., 02AP-1109, Franklin Dept. Rehab. & (“With institutions, be prison administrators must respect penal to * * * to policies practices preserve internal adopting accorded deference security”). order and to maintain institutional contrary, to Dehler’s contentions R.C. Finally, notwithstanding

{¶ 4} stacking statutory damages what permit does not by windfall is conferred statute. essentially request. the same records No (an should not be construed statutory damages “award of See arising requested from lost use of penalty, compensation injury but as information”). his to establish entitlement to award Dehler failed affirm the in his mandamus and we award.

judgment denying the

Judgment affirmed. JJ., Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Brown, C.J., dissents. C.J., dissenting. the denial an award respectfully

6} Dehler, in to In this appeal, refusing Dehler asserts that the court to him statutory damages. award The court of a writ of granted compel prison library mandamus to access appellees provide it but denied Dehler’s statutory damages because unrelated requests separate were the mandamus action Dehler had been held the court lack merit. reasons, For the court of following refusing to award 149.43(C)(1). in statutory damages in accordance with R.C. the court of appeals a writ of granted compel

appellees to immediately satisfy prison library records. As determined, the court itself Dehler “submitted a proper written records,” “failed perform their duties legal under records,” to provide access to those and appellees’ “improper *3 satisfy ‘library’ refusal to the request continued than a of longer period days.” ten 2010-Ohio-3053, Dehler Kelly, 2009-T-0084, rel. v. Trumbull 2636549, 2010 Appellees WL 43. not from appeal did the court of appeals’ judgment Thus, granting the writ. we cannot consider their claims insofar as they suggest because, not Dehler was entitled the requested records inter alia, Dehler did not proffer prepayment copies. See State v. ex Worrell Fund, 116, Ohio Police & Fire 112 Pension Ohio St.3d 858 N.E.2d fn. 1 (“Appellees appeal court’s the issuance limited writ, so we do not the of propriety consider the court of appeals’ holding that the denial”). board duty had a a decision stating Instead, issue the basis for its in the a timely writ, absence of cross-appeal by granting from the of the we must necessarily presume the of propriety the issuance of the writ in our of determination whether the court of in erred Dehler’s denying request for statutory damages. 149.43(C)(1) Second, provides “R.C. for statutory of damages $100

each day business which the during public office failed the comply public- with $1,000,” up to a maximum of and because more than ten business days elapsed from the date Dehler filed this mandamus action and he still has not provided $1,000 been access to the maximum Smith, award is v. applicable. State Doe 2009-Ohio- 45. Third, in R.C. a nothing court or authorizes reduce an award of statutory damages based on the court a appeals’ stated basis of lack of merit for a different a is the separate public-records Rather, mandamus case instituted the same relator. denying focus for or reducing mandatory statutory otherwise award of in damages prevailing to a a party public-records mandamus case is on the a with comply failure that constitutes custodians conduct mandamus case. separate public-records and not in a in that case (b). 149.43(C)(1)(a) denying thus in The erred court of his records statutory purported impropriety on the 2009-T-0075, 2010-Ohio- 11th Dist. No. in ex rel. Dehler State 2636552, separate Fourth, relying supposed also in court because, my I in in note Spatny records request overbreadth of Dehler’s in that appeals’ judgment appeal court separate opinion not at TCI was overbroad. prison quartermaster State

— (Brown, C.J., dissenting). plain is its supported of R.C. Finally, interpretation liberally in favor of language and our duties to “construe in favor of disclosure of records.” any and resolve doubt broad access 2010- Guernsey Office, Ohio St.3d Cty. ex rel. Rocker Sheriffs Ohio-3288, awarding not because Thus, judgment required. damages, reversal appeals’ the court of denial

damages. *4 Dehler, pro

Lambert se. Rutherford, General, and D. Cordray, Attorney Ashley Richard Assistant General, Attorney for appellees. Appellant,

Deputy Warden, as

[Cite 312, 2010-Ohio-5711.]

Read the detailed case summary