State ex rel. Hopgood v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor's OfficeState ex rel. Hopgood v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor's Office
JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED
Writ of Mandamus
Motion No. 517762
Order No. 520537
RELEASE DATE: October 9, 2018
Chiquitta Hopgood, pro se
3508 West 105 Street, Apt. 2
Cleveland, Ohio 44111
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
Michael C. O‘Malley
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Brian R. Gutkoski
Assistant County Prosecutor
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street, 8th Floor
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} Chiquitta Hopgood has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus, pursuant to
{¶2} On August 14, 2014, Hopgood‘s husband, Weems, was indicted for multiple counts of rape, attempted rape, kidnapping and gross sexual imposition.1 In February 2015, Weems was found guilty of one count of rape and one count of kidnapping. On April 2, 2015, Weems was sentenced to a term of incarceration of 15 years. Weems‘s conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal in State v. Weems, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102954, 2016-Ohio-701.
{¶3} On September 14, 2017, October 18, 2017, and November 16, 2017, Hopgood requested, by mail, the following records from the prosecutor maintained by the prosecutor in Weems, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-14-586089-A: 1) all arrest records; 2) all incident reports; 3) all investigation and investigatory reports; 4) all warrants, arrest and search/seizure; 5) all statements by all witnesses and victims; 6) all
{¶4} On September 29, 2017, the prosecutor responded to Hopgood‘s request for records and declined to provide any requested record on the basis that “[t]o the extent your request seeks public records on behalf of Mr. Weems, an inmate‘s designee is not entitled to obtain records absent compliance with
{¶5}
A public office or person responsible for public records is not required to permit a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a criminal conviction or a juvenile adjudication to inspect or to obtain a copy of any public record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution or concerning what would be a criminal investigation or prosecution if the subject of the investigation or prosecution were an adult, unless the request to inspect or to obtain a copy of the record is for the purpose of acquiring information that is subject to release as a public record under this section and the judge who imposed the sentence or made the adjudication with respect to the person, or the judge‘s successor in office, finds that the information sought in the public record is necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim of the person.
{¶6} The Supreme Court of Ohio has established that
And Danny cannot circumvent the requirement of
R.C. 149.43(B)(8) , which requires a finding by his sentencing judge or the judge‘s successor that the requested information is necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim, by designating his brother to request the records for him. As the court of appeals concluded, “Herbert may not do indirectly what Danny is prohibited from doing directly.”
State ex rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga Cty. Jury Commr., 128 Ohio St.3d 528, 2011-Ohio-1914, 947 N.E.2d 670, quoting State ex rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga Cty. Jury Commr., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95005, 2010-Ohio-3301.
{¶8} Thus, Hopgood has failed to establish that she is entitled to a writ of mandamus in order to compel the prosecutor to provide the requested records.
{¶9} Accordingly, we grant the prosecutor‘s motion for summary judgment. Costs to Hopgood. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties with notice of this judgment and the date of this entry upon the journal as required by
{¶10} Writ denied.
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., and
LARRY A. JONES, SR., J., CONCUR