Robert L. Hillman, Plaintiff-Appellant,
David Larrison, Defendant-Appellee.
from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (C.P.C. No.
L. Hillman, pro se.
Richard C. Pfeiffer, Jr., City Attorney, and Timothy J.
Mangan, for appellee.
1} Plaintiff-appellant, Robert L. Hillman, appeals
the decision of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
finding that his accusation by affidavit filed under R.C.
2935.09 was not meritorious, referring the matter to the
prosecuting attorney, and closing the case. For the reasons
set forth below, we reverse.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
2} Hillman initiated this proceeding on March 27,
2015, by filing an accusation by affidavit under R.C.
2935.09. He alleged that defendant-appellee, David Larrison,
a city of Columbus police officer, had committed perjury
under R.C. 2921.11 by making false statements when testifying
during Hillman's criminal trial. The trial court
dismissed the case on July 15, 2015, and Hillman appealed.
3} This court reversed and remanded on the grounds
that the trial court had "summarily dismissed" the
matter without applying R.C. 2935.10, which "
'affords the reviewing official only two options: 1)
issue a warrant or 2) refer the matter to the prosecutor for
investigation if there is a belief that the affidavit lacks a
meritorious claim, i.e. probable cause, or was not made in
good faith.' " Hillman v. Larrison, 10th
Dist. No. 15AP-730, 2016-Ohio-666 ("Hillman
I"), ¶ 14, quoting State ex rel. Brown v.
Jeffries, 4th Dist. No. 11CA3275, 2012-Ohio-1522, ¶
9. Accordingly, we reversed and remanded with instructions to
the trial court to follow the procedures set forth in the
4} On remand, the trial court dismissed the case,
but did so on the grounds that the affidavit was invalid
because it lacked a notary stamp or seal. (Apr. 25, 2016
Decision, Entry & Order.) Hillman appealed the trial
5} Once again, we reversed. Because our previous
decision had "considered Hillman's affidavit to be
facially valid, " we held that the law of the case
doctrine prevented the trial court from revisiting this
previously settled issue and dismissing the case without
complying with the mandate to apply the procedure set forth
under R.C. 2935.10. Hillman v. Larrison, 10th Dist.
No. 16AP-374, 2016-Ohio-7971 ("Hillman
II"), ¶ 6-7.
6} On remand, the trial court examined Hillman's
affidavit and concluded that it was not meritorious.
Accordingly, the trial court referred the matter to the
county prosecutor "for investigation, " overruled a
number of pending motions filed by Hillman, and ordered the
case closed. Id. at ¶ 3.
7} Hillman has appealed, and asserts the following
assignments of error:
[I.] APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE TRIAL COURT DENIED HIM DUE
PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW UNDER THE 1ST, 5TH,
AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION WHEN IT
DELIBERATELY IGNORED THE APPELLANT'S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT
OF HIS CLAIMS, AS SAID EVIDENCE THAT THE COURT CLAIMED
APPELLANT (DID NOT SUBMIT) WAS IN FACT A MATTER OF RECORDS,
MAKING THE COURTS DECISION NOT ONLY AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BUT, A DENIAL OF MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO
THE COURTS, OR APPELLATE REVIEW.
[II.] APPELLANTS SUBMITS THAT THE TRIAL COURT DENIED HIM DUE
PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW UNDER THE 1ST, 5TH
AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS WHERE