68 Ohio St. 3d 507 | Ohio | 1994
The court of appeals did not err in dismissing Hill’s mandamus and prohibition complaint. The trial court has authority to resolve disputes and correct factual errors in a trial record, including disputes over when a verdict form was filed or the effect of a document’s being filed late. See State v. Schiebel (1990), 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 81, 564 N.E.2d 54, 66; Reichert v. Ingersoll (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 220, 222, 18 OBR 281, 283, 480 N.E.2d 802, 805. App.R. 9(E) specifically provides:
“(E) Correction or Modification of the Record.
“ * * * If anything material * * * is omitted from the record by error or accident or is misstated therein, the parties by stipulation, or the trial court,*509 either before or after the record is transmitted to the court of appeals, * * * may direct that the omission or misstatement be corrected[.]” (Emphasis added.)
Additionally, Hill can secure neither mandamus nor prohibition because he already has an adequate legal remedy to raise those issues in his pending capital case. See R.C. 2731.05; State v. Martin (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 122, 132, 19 OBR 330, 338-339, 483 N.E.2d 1157, 1166; State v. D’Ambrosio (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 185, 199, 616 N.E.2d 909, 920-921.
We have also stressed the parties’ responsibility to correct trial records through App.R. 9(C) and 9(E). See State v. Tyler (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 24, 41, 553 N.E.2d 576, 596; State v. Brewer (1990), 48 Ohio St.3d 50, 60, 549 N.E.2d 491, 501-502. As do all counsel, counsel representing criminal defendants have an obligation not to file separate and multiplicitous lawsuits when issues can be addressed in pending litigation. See Civ.R. 11; DR 7-102(A)(1) and (2); Disciplinary Counsel v. Leyshon (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 202, 625 N.E.2d 602; Disciplinary Counsel v. Cox (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 124, 568 N.E.2d 1219; Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Russell (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 211, 556 N.E.2d 499.
Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
