| Farley v. Wainwright |
| Citation: 2021-Ohio-670 Opinion Date: March 11, 2021 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was entitled to immediate release from prison because the Bureau of Sentence Computation (BSC) and the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) failed to update their records after Appellant was resentenced in 2000, holding that Appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In dismissing the petition, the Third District held that Appellant had failed to attach all applicable commitment papers to his petition, as required under Ohio Rev. Code 2725.04(D), and that Appellant had not alleged facts showing that he was entitled to immediate release from prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant provided his commitment papers with his petition; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to immediate release. |
| |
| State ex rel. Sands v. Coulson |
| Citation: 2021-Ohio-671 Opinion Date: March 11, 2021 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus against Lake County Prosecuting Attorney Charles Coulson, holding that Appellant was not entitled to the writ. Appellant was convicted of three counts of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder, two counts of conspiracy to commit aggravated arson, and one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. In his action for a writ of mandamus, Appellant alleged that his convictions were based on perjured testimony and that Coulson had a constitutional duty to provide him a fair trial. The court of appeals granted Coulson's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Coulson was not under a clear legal duty to perform an action that he had no legal authority to undertake. |
| |
| State ex rel. Thomas v. Nestor |
| Citation: 2021-Ohio-672 Opinion Date: March 11, 2021 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Criminal Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of procedendo and/or mandamus seeking to compel the trial court's compliance with Civ.R. 58(B), holding that, although the court of appeals' judgment dismissing the petition was correct. Appellant, an inmate, sought the writ to compel Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Steven Martin to serve upon Appellant a judgment entry in which Appellant's motion to correct his sentencing entry was denied. The court of appeals dismissed the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that granting Appellant his requested writ of mandamus was of no benefit to him because Appellant could still timely file a notice of appeal from the judgment entry. |
| |
| State ex rel. Tarrier v. Public Employees Retirement Board |
| Citation: 2021-Ohio-649 Opinion Date: March 10, 2021 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law |
| The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus ordering the Public Employees Retirement Board to transfer Appellant from the "combined" plan in the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System to the "traditional" plan, holding that Appellant was not entitled to a writ of mandamus. After the court of appeals denied the writ, Appellant appealed, asserting six propositions of law sounding in mandamus and in common-law tort. Appellant also filed a motion for oral argument. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals and denied the motion for oral argument, holding (1) Appellant failed to establish a clear legal right to relief or a clear legal duty on the part of the Board to provide it; and (2) this Court and the court of appeals lacked original jurisdiction over Appellant's common-law tort claims. |
| |
| State ex rel. Fire Rock, Ltd. v. Ohio Department of Commerce |
| Citation: 2021-Ohio-673 Opinion Date: March 11, 2021 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law |
| The Supreme Court granted a peremptory writ of mandamus compelling with Ohio Department of Commerce and the Ohio Medical Marijuana Control Program (collectively, the Department) to approve or deny Fire Rock, Ltd.'s application to expand its marijuana cultivation area, holding that Fire Rock was entitled to the writ. Fire Rock submitted an application requesting approval to expand its Akron-based cultivation facility. When the Department took no action on the expansion request, Fire Rock filed a complaint for writ of mandamus ordering the Department to approve or deny Fire Rock's application. The Supreme Court granted a peremptory writ, holding (1) Ohio law does not prohibit a cultivator like Fire Rock from submitting an expansion application on its own initiative; (2) the Department had a clear legal duty to act on Fire Rock's application, and Fire Rock had a clear legal right to that relief; and (3) Fire Rock lacked an adequate remedy at law. |
| |
| State ex rel. McDougald v. Sehlmeyer |
| Citation: 2021-Ohio-666 Opinion Date: March 10, 2021 Judge: Per Curiam Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law |
| The Supreme Court denied the writ of mandamus sought by Jerone McDougald to compel Sonrisa Sehlmeyer, the public-records custodian at Toledo Correctional Institution, where McDougald was an inmate, to make available for inspection a certain video, holding that Sehlmeyer presented evidence supporting her claim that allowing McDougald to inspect the video would create undue security risks. McDougald send a public-records request to Sehlmeyer asking to inspect video surveillance footage of a use-of-force incident involving him. Sehlmeyer did not provide the video to McDougald. McDougald then filed this original action asking the Supreme Court to compel Sehlmeyer to allow him to inspect the video. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Sehlmeyer did not have a clear legal duty to allow McDougald to inspect the video. |
| |
