Robert L. Hillman, Plaintiff-Appellant,
David Larrison, Defendant-Appellee.
from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, No. 15CV-2664
L. Hillman, pro se.
Klein, City Attorney, and Timothy J. Mangan, for appellee.
1} Plaintiff-appellant, Robert L. Hillman, appeals
the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
finding that his accusation by affidavit filed pursuant to
R.C. 2935.09 was not meritorious, referring the matter to the
prosecuting attorney, and closing the case. Because we find
the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found
that the accusation by affidavit was not meritorious, we
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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, committed perjury in
violation of 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
3} This court reversed and remanded the case on the
ground 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 for the arrest of the person
charged in the affidavit, if the judge, clerk, or magistrate
has no reason to believe that it was not filed in good faith
or the claim is not meritorious, or (2) refer the matter to
the prosecuting attorney for investigation prior to the
issuance of a warrant, if the judge, clerk, or magistrate has
reason to believe that it was not filed in good faith or the
claim is not meritorious." Hillman v. Larrison,
10th Dist. No. 15AP-730, 2016-Ohio-666, ¶ 10
("Hillman I"). Accordingly, we remanded
with instructions to the trial court to follow the procedures
set forth in the statute.
4} On remand, the trial court dismissed the case,
but did so on the ground that Hillman's accusation by
affidavit was invalid because it lacked a notary stamp or
seal. Hillman appealed the trial court's decision.
5} We again reversed. Because our previous decision
considered Hillman's affidavit to be facially valid, we
held that the law of the case doctrine prevented the court
from dismissing the case without complying with the mandate
to apply the procedure set forth in R.C. 2935.10. Hillman
v. Larrison, 10th Dist. No. 16AP-374, 2016-Ohio-7971
("Hillman II ").
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. Hillman again appealed the trial court's
7} We again reversed and remanded the case to the
trial court finding that it did not properly examine all the
evidence Hillman presented in support of his accusation by
affidavit. Hillman v. Larrison, 10th Dist. No.
17AP-160, 2018-Ohio-184 ("Hillman III
"). We again directed the trial court "to
consider whether Hillman has made a meritorious allegation of
perjury, based on his affidavit and ...