State ex rel. Hatfield v. FrenchState ex rel. Hatfield v. French
Rendered on January 6, 2022
Todd L. Hatfield, pro se.
G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrea C. Hofer, for respondent.
IN MANDAMUS ON OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE‘S DECISION
KLATT, J.
{¶ 1} Relator, Todd L. Hatfield, commenced this original action in mandamus seeking an order compelling respondent, the Honorable Jenifer French, to charge him with a crime pursuant to
{¶ 2} Pursuant to
{¶ 3} Relator has filed objections to the magistrate‘s decision. Those objections present three arguments: (1) respondent‘s motion to dismiss was not properly before the magistrate; (2) relator does not have an adequate remedy at law; and (3) mandamus is the appropriate procedural vehicle because relator only seeks the production of public records—the opening and closing arguments from his criminal trial. As discussed below, relator‘s arguments are flawed.
{¶ 4} With respect to relator‘s first argument, we recognize that respondent‘s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was untimely. However, at the same time respondent filed its motion to dismiss, respondent also filed a motion for leave to file the motion to dismiss instanter. Although the record does not indicate that the magistrate expressly ruled on respondent‘s motion for leave, by recommending that we grant respondent‘s motion to dismiss, the magistrate implicitly granted the motion for leave to file instanter. State v. G.F., 10th Dist. No. 18AP-201, 2019-Ohio-3673, ¶ 10-11 (trial court implicitly granted state‘s motion for extension of time to file memorandum contra by considering the state‘s memorandum contra); J.M. v. A.M., 2d Dist. No. 2015-CA-92, 2016-Ohio-1261, ¶ 7, fn. 1 (although the juvenile court did not issue an express ruling on the motion to amend, it implicitly granted the motion, since it ultimately ruled on the request contained within the motion). After reviewing the motion for leave to file instanter, we agree that respondent demonstrated excusable neglect for its untimely filing. Therefore, respondent‘s motion to dismiss was properly before the magistrate and we find relator‘s first argument unpersuasive.
{¶ 5} In his second argument, relator contends that contrary to the magistrate‘s finding, he does not have an adequate remedy at law. Although relator‘s complaint seeks a variety of relief associated with his criminal trial, he now argues that he only seeks a transcript of the opening and closing arguments from his trial. Relator acknowledges that he previously appealed the trial court‘s denial of his request for the opening and closing arguments and that he lost his direct appeal from that ruling. See State v. Hatfield, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-1045, 2012-Ohio-3473. Because he lost the appeal, relator argues he does
{¶ 6} Lastly, relator argues that mandamus is the appropriate procedural vehicle to obtain the opening and closing arguments from his criminal trial because they are public records. Again, relator‘s argument is flawed for multiple reasons. First, nothing in relator‘s complaint suggests that he sought the production of public records pursuant to
{¶ 7} For all these reasons, we overrule relator‘s objections.
{¶ 8} We also note that on October 21, 2021, relator filed a motion for leave to supplement his pleadings. We grant that motion. We considered the arguments contained therein in overruling relator‘s objections.
{¶ 9} Following an independent review of this matter, we find that the magistrate has properly determined the facts and applied the appropriate law. Therefore, we adopt the magistrate‘s decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. In accordance with the magistrate‘s decision, we deny relator‘s request for a writ of mandamus and grant respondent‘s motion to dismiss.
Motion to supplement granted; objections overruled; motion to dismiss granted and writ of mandamus denied.
BEATTY BLUNT and NELSON, JJ., concur.
NELSON, J., retired, of the Tenth Appellate District, assigned to active duty under authority of
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
State ex rel. Todd L. Hatfield, Relator, v. Judge Jenifer French of the Franklin County Common Pleas Court et al., Respondent.
No. 20AP-97
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
MAGISTRATE‘S DECISION
Rendered on July 26, 2021
Todd L. Hatfield, pro se.
G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and Bryan B. Lee, for respondent.
IN MANDAMUS ON RESPONDENT‘S MOTION TO DISMISS
{¶ 10} Relator, Todd L. Hatfield, has filed this original action seeking a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, the Honorable Jenifer French, to charge him with a crime pursuant to
Findings of Fact:
{¶ 12} 2. Relator is a prisoner incarcerated at Marion Correctional Institution.
{¶ 13} 3. Respondent presided over relator‘s criminal case in case Franklin C.P. No. 03CR-905.
{¶ 14} 4. In case No. 03CR-905, relator was convicted, pursuant to a jury trial, on the charges of aggravated murder, tampering with evidence, and gross abuse of a corpse.
{¶ 15} 5. Relator appealed his convictions, and in State v. Hatfield, 10th Dist. No. 04AP-402, 2004-Ohio-6450, this court affirmed the trial court‘s convictions but remanded the case for resentencing.
{¶ 16} 6. Upon remand to the trial court, the trial court resentenced relator.
{¶ 17} 7. Relator appealed the new sentence. In State v. Hatfield, 10th Dist. No. 05AP-740 (Apr. 6, 2006) (Judgment Entry), this court reversed the trial court and remanded the matter for resentencing.
{¶ 18} 8. Upon second remand to the trial court, the trial court again resentenced relator.
{¶ 19} 9. Relator appealed the new sentence. In State v. Hatfield, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-1205, 2007-Ohio-3735, this court affirmed the trial court‘s sentence.
{¶ 20} 10. Thereafter, relator filed several post-conviction petitions and appeals.
{¶ 21} 11. In State v. Hatfield, 10th Dist. No. 11AP-1045, 2012-Ohio-3473, relator filed an appeal of the trial court‘s denial of his post-conviction petition requesting the production of transcripts of his opening and closing arguments. This court affirmed the trial court‘s judgment.
{¶ 22} 12. Relator filed his current complaint in mandamus with this court on February 13, 2020. The complaint alleges that respondent had a duty to charge him with a crime pursuant to
{¶ 23} 13. On April 12, 2021, respondent filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to
{¶ 24} In order for this court to issue a writ of mandamus, a relator must ordinarily show a clear legal right to the relief sought, a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide such relief, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967).
{¶ 25}
{¶ 26} “A court can dismiss a mandamus action under
{¶ 27} A court can consider the basic allegations in the complaint itself and any materials attached to the petition but may not rely on allegations or evidence outside the complaint. State ex rel. Fuqua v. Alexander, 79 Ohio St.3d 206-07 (1997). In addition, courts may take judicial notice of appropriate matters in determining a
{¶ 28} In the present case, respondent argues that relator‘s motion should be dismissed because relator has an adequate remedy at law. Respondent asserts that relator seeks to relitigate issues regarding his conviction, including issues pertaining to his indictment, discovery, and requests for production of documents relating to his criminal case. Respondent points out that relator timely appealed his conviction, and was resentenced multiple times after successful appeals, finally culminating in an affirmance of his conviction and sentence by this court. Respondent claims that relator is using the instant mandamus action as an alternative to appeal.
{¶ 30} Respondent also raises a res judicata argument, asserting that relator already raised his arguments regarding discovery and the transcripts of opening and closing arguments in a post-conviction petition, and this court rejected the arguments in Hatfield, 2012-Ohio-3473. However, the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the dismissal of a mandamus action on grounds of res judicata for failure to state a claim is
{¶ 31} Accordingly, it is the magistrate‘s decision that, even presuming all factual allegations of the complaint are true and making all reasonable inferences in relator‘s favor, relator had an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal of his original conviction and sentencing. Therefore, the magistrate recommends that this court grant respondent‘s motion to dismiss relator‘s complaint for a writ of mandamus.
/S/ MAGISTRATE
THOMAS W. SCHOLL III
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES