Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Harris

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

July 20, 2018

STATE OF OHIO RESPONDENT
v.
RONALD L. HARRIS, SR. RELATOR

          Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 515621 Order No. 518977

          FOR RELATOR Ronald L. Harris, Sr.

          ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT Michael C. O'Malley Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          MELODY J. STEWART, J.

         {¶1} Ronald L. Harris, Sr. has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Harris seeks an order from this court that requires Judge Robert McClelland to immediately proceed to trial or dismiss the criminal charges pending in State v. Harris, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-17-620794, based upon a claim of lack of speedy trial. Judge McClelland has filed a motion for summary judgment that is granted for the following reasons.

         {¶2} Initially, we find that Harris's complaint for a writ of mandamus is defective because it is improperly captioned. The complaint for a writ of mandamus is styled as "Motion of Writ of Mandamus." Pursuant to RC. 2731.04, a complaint for a writ of mandamus must be brought in the name of the state on relation of the person applying and cannot be captioned as a motion. Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139, 2005-Ohio-5795, 841 N.E.2d 766; State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula, 81 Ohio St.3d 110, 689 N.E.2d 564 (1998); Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty., 173 Ohio St. 226, 181 N.E.2d 270 (1962). Harris has also failed to comply with Civ.R. 10(A), which requires that the complaint must include the addresses of all parties. Bandy v. Villanueva, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96866, 2011-Ohio-4831.

         {¶3} In addition, Harris has failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and 2969.25(C). Pursuant to R.C. 2969.25(A), an inmate who commences a civil action against a government entity or employee must also file a sworn affidavit that contains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court. State ex rel McGrath v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511, 2010-Ohio-4726, 935 N.E.2d 830. R.C. 2969.25(C) requires that Harris file a statement setting forth his inmate account balance for each of the preceding six months as certified by the institutional cashier. Freed v. Bova, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99908, 2013-Ohio-4378; Turner v. Russo, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87852, 2006-Ohio-4490. Harris has not filed with his complaint for a writ of mandamus the sworn affidavit that details the civil actions filed in the previous five years or the certified cashier statement. It must also be noted that the failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A) and 2969.25(C) cannot be cured through an amendment of the original complaint. State ex rel. Swain v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 151 Ohio St.3d 552, 2017-Ohio-9175, 90 N.E.3d 936; Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-5533, 797 N.E.2d 982.

         {¶4} Finally, a lack of speedy trial claim cannot be addressed through a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Speedy trial issues can be addressed only through direct appeal. State ex rel. Dix v. Angelotta, 18 Ohio St.3d 115, 480 N.E.2d 407 (1985). Furthermore, an appeal is an adequate remedy, precluding mandamus for addressing speedy trial issues. State ex rel. Ross v. State, 102 Ohio St.3d 73, 2004-Ohio-1827, 806 N.E.2d 553, and Bryan v. Knapp, 21 Ohio St.3d 64, 488 N.E.2d 142 (1986).

         {¶5} Accordingly, we grant Judge McClelland's motion for summary judgment. Costs to Harris. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties with notice of this judgment and the date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

         {¶6} ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.