Court Filings

The Tenth District Court of Appeals denied Lorenza Barnette’s petition for a writ of mandamus and granted the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s motion for summary judgment. Barnette sought an order directing the Department to change its records to reflect that his June 28, 2021 entry imposed no prison sentence. The court concluded the 2011 judgment imposing two life-without-parole terms (plus additional consecutive terms) remains the operative sentence. The 2019 entry imposing post-release control was vacated on appeal and the 2021 entry only notified him of post-release control for kidnapping, not resentencing.

The court dismissed Hasan Howard’s petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a Lake County judge’s failure to quash a warrant or promptly hold a community-control violation hearing while Howard remains in federal custody. The judge granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), concluding Howard cannot show a clear legal right to relief because Ohio law tolls community control while an offender is confined, and the interstate detainer statute does not require a prompt hearing for probation or community-control violations. The court also relied on due-process precedent holding no right to an immediate hearing before custody on the detainer has occurred.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals dismissed a mandamus complaint filed by James and Cynthia Lundeen and Sir Isaac Newton Enterprises seeking to force Cuyahoga Common Pleas Judge Sherrie Miday to vacate her order dismissing the Lundeens’ counterclaim for false-light invasion of privacy. The court held Judge Miday had subject-matter jurisdiction after the case was transferred to common pleas court and that any error in her ruling would make the judgment voidable, not void, meaning mandamus was not an appropriate remedy because an appeal is an adequate remedy at law. The court also declared the Lundeens vexatious litigants and barred pro se filings without leave.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals denied Monica G. Justice’s request for a writ of mandamus that would have ordered the Franklin County clerk to serve her a July 22, 2025 amended sentencing entry. The court adopted the magistrate’s decision and granted the State’s motion to dismiss because Justice, an incarcerated pro se relator, failed to comply with statutory procedural requirements for inmate litigants. Specifically, she did not file the required affidavit listing prior civil actions, did not provide the certified inmate-account statements/affidavit of indigency needed to waive fees, and did not caption the petition in the name of the State on her relation.

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals dismissed Mao Ju’s mandamus action seeking to force a Xenia Municipal Court magistrate to further process her citizen criminal affidavit charging her former spouse with interference with custody. The court held that the magistrate properly reviewed the affidavit and determined it did not establish probable cause for a misdemeanor, and that Ohio statutes do not require the magistrate to docket the affidavit, assign a case number, refer misdemeanor allegations to a prosecutor, or hold a formal probable-cause hearing. Because Ju could not show a clear legal right or a mandatory duty owed by the magistrate, the writ was denied.

The Ohio Supreme Court denied mandamus relief to inmate-relator Devin D. Howard against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s chief inspector’s office. Howard had appealed an institutional grievance and included a request for two correction-officer work schedules and copies of two ODRC policies. The inspector’s office maintained it did not view the grievance appeal as a public-records request and therefore did not respond as a records custodian. The Court concluded Howard did not carry his burden to show he clearly submitted a public-records request in that context, and it denied the writ and his requests for statutory damages and costs.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s award of legal custody of two-year-old D.W. to the child’s paternal grandmother and her partner. The juvenile court had previously adjudicated D.W. dependent and placed the child in temporary custody after concerns about Mother’s methamphetamine use, unstable housing, and association with a drug-using boyfriend. The appellate court found the record shows Mother failed to comply with her case plan (substance use and mental health treatment, drug screens, and housing stability), while custodians provided a stable, supportive home and facilitated parental visitation. The court concluded the award was supported by the greater weight of the evidence and was in the child’s best interest.

The court reversed a juvenile delinquency judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The juvenile, D.W.R., had been adjudicated for gross sexual imposition and sexual imposition based principally on testimony from a developmentally disabled adult, N.O. The state moved to dismiss the appeal as moot after community supervision ended; the court denied that motion because the adjudication still carries a firearms disability. The court concluded N.O. was incompetent to testify because he lacked a basic understanding of truth, so admitting his testimony was prejudicial. Because the evidence (including the admitted testimony) was nonetheless sufficient, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with law.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Twelfth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of Ramone Wright’s mandamus petition asking the Madison County Municipal Court to vacate a prior traffic conviction. Wright argued he could not have committed the traffic offense because he was allegedly jailed on another matter at the time, and said his time to appeal had passed. The Supreme Court held Wright had an adequate remedy at law—direct appeal or postconviction procedures—and therefore mandamus was not available. The municipal court’s motion to dismiss the appeal was denied as procedurally improper but its brief was considered on the merits.

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's denial of Mother's petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking return of four children removed to protective custody. The children were adjudicated in juvenile court after a May 31, 2023 shelter-care removal; Mother later revoked consent to a proposed legal custody transfer and pursued various postjudgment motions and appeals. The juvenile court denied habeas relief because Mother had an adequate remedy at law (a motion for further disposition and appeals) and the lack of notice of the initial shelter-care hearing did not strip the juvenile court of jurisdiction. The appellate court found no reversible error.

The Ohio Supreme Court accepted the resignation of attorney David Paul Greulich Jr. under the rule for resignation when disciplinary action is pending. The court treated the filing as a resignation with disciplinary action pending and ordered that Greulich be immediately prohibited from practicing law in Ohio, surrender his admission certificate, and have his name stricken from the roll. The court also imposed post-resignation obligations: notify clients and opposing counsel, deliver client files, refund unearned fees, refrain from handling client funds, reimburse the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection if applicable, and file proof of compliance with the court and disciplinary counsel.

The court denied Keimarkus Woodard’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking a new parole-revocation hearing, an acquittal of alleged parole violations, and removal from post-release control. The Tenth District adopted the magistrate’s findings that the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (OAPA) complied with due process and that the hearing officer’s findings that Woodard violated conditions of supervision were supported by substantial evidence (including agent testimony and a seized packet testing positive for fentanyl). The court concluded Woodard failed to show OAPA had a clear legal duty to find him not guilty or that OAPA abused its discretion.

The court dismissed Prince Charles Cotten Sr.’s procedendo petition as moot. Cotten sought an order requiring Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Carl A. Aveni to proceed to judgment in Cotten’s underlying civil case, alleging delay and failure to rule on a motion. The magistrate and appellate panel found the trial judge had already dismissed Cotten’s complaint without prejudice on August 11, 2025 (thereby resolving pending motions), so there was no remaining duty to compel. Because the act Cotten sought had been performed, the procedendo claim was moot and the motion to dismiss was sustained.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals dismissed Trumbull County Children Services Board’s petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition as moot. The Board had asked the court to force the juvenile judge to comply with the appellate mandate in In re A.W. (which returned legal custody of A.W. to the maternal aunt) and to bar the judge’s ex parte order granting the father temporary custody. After a pretrial conference the parties represented that the aunt now has legal and physical custody in accordance with the mandate and the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry clarifying the record, so the appellate court found the requested relief obtained and dismissed the petition.

The First District Court of Appeals reviewed two juvenile cases against T.B. after police stopped him and three companions for jaywalking and found a handgun on his person following a frisk. The court affirmed the juvenile court’s denial of suppression and the concealed-weapons adjudication, concluding the frisk was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion, the gun was properly authenticated, and was shown operable. But the court reversed the jaywalking adjudication because the juvenile court abused its discretion by implicitly denying T.B.’s timely pre-disposition motion to withdraw his plea without explanation. The matter was remanded for withdrawal of the jaywalking plea.

The Ohio Supreme Court adopted the Board of Professional Conduct’s findings that attorney Jack Herchel VanBibber committed multiple ethics violations while a prior disciplinary matter was pending. The court found that he neglected a client’s custody matter, knowingly made false statements to a tribunal, solicited a client’s significant other for sex via electronic messages, and failed to cooperate and made false statements during disciplinary investigations. Considering aggravating factors (prior discipline, multiple offenses, dishonesty, lack of cooperation, and harm to others) and limited mitigation, the court suspended him from practice for two years and taxed costs to him.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth District Court of Appeals' dismissal of Ramone Wright’s petition for a writ of mandamus against the Franklin County Municipal Court Clerk. Wright sought to compel the clerk to vacate an allegedly unconstitutional 2009 municipal-court conviction based on an apparent error in the judgment entry. The court held that Wright failed to state a mandamus claim because he did not show a clear legal right to vacatur, the clerk had no clear legal duty to vacate the judgment, and Wright had an adequate remedy by appeal. A separate request for judgment was denied as moot.

The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed disciplinary proceedings against attorney Javier Horacio Armengau arising from his criminal convictions for rape, kidnapping, gross sexual imposition, sexual battery, and a misdemeanor public indecency. The Board of Professional Conduct had found those convictions established violations of professional-conduct rules and recommended permanent disbarment. The court rejected Armengau’s objections — including attempts to relitigate his criminal convictions, to introduce a polygraph, and to rely on character evidence — and held certified convictions are conclusive in disciplinary matters. The court adopted the board’s findings and permanently disbarred Armengau to protect the public and preserve professional integrity.

The court dismissed a mandamus complaint filed by Davontez Otis seeking an order compelling a judge to calculate jail-time credit in his underlying criminal case. Otis argued the calculation was ministerial and that appeal would be inadequate because his 90-day jail term would expire before appellate review. The court held that the statute governing jail-time credit grants the sentencing court discretion to grant or deny credit, so mandamus is not available to control that discretion; furthermore, an appeal (with a stay request) is an adequate remedy. The writ was dismissed and costs were assessed to Otis.

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of inmate Patrick O. Stokes’s mandamus action seeking copies of an electronic kite and its response. Stokes filed the action against A. Combs but, in the affidavit required by R.C. 2969.25(A), failed to provide the case numbers for three appeals he said he filed within the prior five years. The court held that the statute requires strict compliance and that an inmate must list and describe all civil actions and appeals filed in the previous five years, including their case numbers, so dismissal was proper.

The Ohio Supreme Court granted in part and denied in part James Quinn’s mandamus request to compel Judge Douglas Rastatter to rule on filings in Quinn’s 2014 criminal case. Quinn had filed a petition for postconviction relief and a combined motion for leave to file a new-trial motion plus the new-trial motion itself in April 2024. Because the trial judge later denied the postconviction petition, the Court denied that part of the writ as moot. The Court held the judge must rule on the motion for leave to file a new-trial motion (Crim.R. 33(B)) but denied relief as to the substantive new-trial motion because the rules require the motions be decided sequentially.

The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Lorain County Common Pleas Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nancy Vega, holding she is entitled to participate in the Ohio workers’ compensation system. Vega fell at work and injured her shoulder; the court concluded her fall was an “unexplained fall” under Waller v. Mayfield, meaning it arose from a neutral risk tied to the workplace. Because Vega eliminated idiopathic (personal) causes and there was no evidence of a non-employment cause, an inference arose that the injury was work-related. The BWC forfeited its challenge by not participating in initial briefing.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals dismissed Jeffrey A. Swiecicki’s pro se appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Swiecicki appealed a February 6, 2026 magistrate’s decision, but the court determined the decision was not a final, appealable order because the trial court had not yet adopted the magistrate’s decision or entered judgment disposing of all claims. Under Ohio law, only a judge’s final order is appealable; magistrate decisions remain interlocutory until the trial court acts. The court granted the appellee’s motion to dismiss and noted the appellant may appeal after a final judgment is entered in the trial court.

The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s dispositions adjudicating R.G. and R.C. juvenile traffic offenders. Both juveniles challenged the denial of motions to suppress statements they made to police without receiving Miranda warnings. The appellate court concluded the encounters occurred at the juveniles’ workplace, were brief and unrestrained, and did not involve physical restraint, threats, or coercive tactics; therefore the questioning was not custodial and Miranda warnings were not required. The court also found the statements were voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.

The Ohio Supreme Court denied an inmate’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to force the Grafton Correctional Institution warden to place him in the opioid-treatment track (OTP) of the state medication-assisted-treatment (MAT) program. The court found that the inmate did not show by clear and convincing evidence that he had a clear legal right to receive buprenorphine or methadone specifically, or that the warden had a clear legal duty to provide that particular treatment. The court also held the inmate had an adequate remedy at law (a motion to enforce the trial court’s amended order).

The Ohio Supreme Court denied as moot Joshua D. Cook’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking surveillance video from Chillicothe Correctional Institution because the records custodian, Natalie Magee, provided access to the requested footage and mailed a DVD copy to an agent designated by Cook. The court also denied Cook’s request for statutory damages because Magee offered him the opportunity to view the footage on the same day he filed the mandamus action, and Cook did not provide evidence the mailed DVD was corrupted. The court concluded no outstanding record remained to compel.