State ex rel. Boler v. McCarthy ( 2023 )

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State
ex rel. Boler v. McCarthy, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-500.]
NOTICE
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is published.
SLIP OPINION NO. 2023-OHIO-500THE STATE EX REL . BOLER, APPELLANT, v. MCCARTHY, JUDGE, APPELLEE.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it
may be cited as State ex rel. Boler v. McCarthy, Slip Opinion No.
2023-Ohio-500.]
Prohibition and mandamus—Appellant had an adequate remedy in ordinary course
of law in that he could have asserted claim in direct appeal—Court of
appeals’ dismissal of complaint affirmed.
(No. 2022-1157—Submitted January 10, 2023—Decided February 23, 2023.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Athens County, No. 22CA12.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Phillip Dionte Boler, filed a complaint for writs of
prohibition and mandamus in the court of appeals seeking the vacatur of his
criminal convictions. The court of appeals dismissed the complaint, concluding
that Boler’s claim is barred under the doctrine of res judicata and that Boler had an
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law by way of a direct appeal of his
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
convictions. Boler appeals the dismissal of his complaint. Because Boler had an
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, we affirm.
Background
{¶ 2} In 2009, a jury found Boler guilty of aggravated robbery and complicity
to commit murder, both with firearm specifications. He was sentenced to an
aggregate prison term of 28 years to life.
{¶ 3} At issue here is Boler’s complaint for writs of prohibition and
mandamus, which he filed against appellee, Athens County Court of Common
Pleas Judge George P. McCarthy, in the Fourth District Court of Appeals in July
2022. In his complaint, Boler argued that his convictions must be vacated because
the trial court lacked jurisdiction to, in his view, misconstrue and misapply Ohio’s
aggravated-robbery statute, R.C. 2911.01. The court of appeals granted Judge
McCarthy’s motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), concluding that Boler’s
claim was barred under the doctrine of res judicata. The court also concluded that
Boler had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law because he could
have raised his claim that the trial court misapplied R.C. 2911.01 when he directly
appealed his convictions.
{¶ 4} Boler has appealed to this court as of right.
Analysis
{¶ 5} To dismiss a claim pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), it must appear beyond
doubt from the complaint that the relator can prove no set of facts warranting relief,
after all factual allegations are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are
made in his favor. State ex rel. Natl. Elec. Contrs. Assn., Ohio Conference v. Ohio
Bur. of Emp. Servs., 83 Ohio St.3d 179, 181, 699 N.E.2d 64 (1998). We review de
novo the court of appeals’ dismissal of Boler’s complaint. State ex rel. Brown v.
Nusbaum, 152 Ohio St.3d 284, 2017-Ohio-9141, 95 N.E.3d 365, ¶ 10.
{¶ 6} To state a claim for a writ of prohibition, Boler must plead facts
showing that the trial court exercised judicial power without authority and that denial
2
January Term, 2023
of the writ would result in injury for which he lacks an adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Elder v. Camplese, 144 Ohio St.3d 89, 2015-
Ohio-3628, 40 N.E.3d 1138, ¶ 13. To state a claim for a writ of mandamus, Boler
must plead facts establishing that he has a clear legal right to the relief he requests,
that Judge McCarthy has a clear legal duty to provide that relief, and that there is
no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Love v.
O’Donnell, 150 Ohio St.3d 378, 2017-Ohio-5659, 81 N.E.3d 1250, ¶ 3.
{¶ 7} The court of appeals erred in dismissing Boler’s complaint on res
judicata grounds. “[R]es judicata is an affirmative defense that is not a proper basis
for dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” State
ex rel. Newell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 165 Ohio St.3d 341, 2021-
Ohio-3662, 179 N.E.3d 84, ¶ 10.
{¶ 8} Nevertheless, Boler did have an adequate remedy at law. In fact,
Boler does not dispute that he could have raised his claim that the trial court
misapplied R.C. 2911.01 when he directly appealed his convictions. Therefore, the
court of appeals correctly dismissed Boler’s complaint.
{¶ 9} Boler couches his claim in jurisdictional terms, arguing that the trial
court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to misapply R.C. 2911.01. It
is true that a relator need not establish the lack of an adequate remedy if there was
a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction. See State ex rel. Dannaher v.
Crawford, 78 Ohio St.3d 391, 393, 678 N.E.2d 549 (1997) (“where a lower court
patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction over the cause, prohibition and
mandamus will issue to * * * correct the results of prior jurisdictionally
unauthorized actions, notwithstanding the availability of appeal”). But here, the
trial court plainly had subject-matter jurisdiction over Boler’s criminal case under
R.C. 2931.03, which gives common pleas courts subject-matter jurisdiction over
felony cases. Boler has not identified any statute that removed the trial court’s
jurisdiction. See Ohio High School Athletic Assn. v. Ruehlman, 157 Ohio St.3d 296,
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
2019-Ohio-2845, 136 N.E.3d 436, ¶ 9 (“when we have found that a court of common
pleas patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction, it is almost always because a
statute explicitly removed that jurisdiction”). Boler therefore cannot avoid the lack-
of-adequate-remedy requirement.
Conclusion
{¶ 10} Because Boler had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the
law, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER,
and DETERS, JJ., concur.
_________________
Phillip Dionte Boler, pro se.
George P. McCarthy, Judge, pro se.
_________________
4