State v. Christian , 2024 Ohio 4493 ( 2024 )

[Cite as State v. Christian, 2024-Ohio-4493.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 113580
v. :
CLIFFORD CHRISTIAN, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 12, 2024
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-00-398493-ZA
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Tasha L. Forchione, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
Clifford Christian, pro se.
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J.:
Defendant-appellant Clifford Christian (“Christian”) appeals from
the trial court’s denial of his public records request. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
Factual and Procedural History
On November 9, 2000, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted
Christian on one count of aggravated murder with a firearm specification. The case
proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury found Christian guilty on May 3, 2001. The
trial court sentenced Christian to 23 years to life in prison.
Christian filed a direct appeal, and this court affirmed Christian’s
conviction and sentence in 2002. State v. Christian, 2002-Ohio-1272 (8th Dist.).
Christian is currently incarcerated at Belmont Correctional Institution.
On October 17, 2023, Christian filed a “motion for full disclosure of
non-exempt records pursuant to R.C. 149.43-45 and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552(a)” (“the
public records motion”). In the public records motion, Christian stated that he
required full disclosure of all non-exempt records because he was preparing for his
parole hearing and was therefore entitled to full disclosure pursuant to R.C.
149.43(B)(8).
On October 26, 2023, the State filed a brief in opposition to
Christian’s public records motion.
On November 27, 2023, the trial court denied Christian’s public
records motion, stating that Christian had “not offered a justiciable claim
contemplated by ORC 149.”
On January 23, 2024, Christian filed a motion for leave to file a
delayed appeal. On March 6, 2024, this court granted Christian’s motion for leave
to file a delayed appeal, stating:
A public records request is civil in nature. App.R. 4(A)(3) applies to
civil appeals and states that if service is not perfected as outlined in
Civ.R. 58, then the period for filing an appeal is tolled. State v. Tucker,
8th Dist. No. 95556, 2011-Ohio-4092, P9. The trial court failed to
direct the clerk of court to serve the appellant with notice of the
judgment per Civ.R. 58. Therefore, the time to file the appeal was
tolled, and appellant’s appeal is timely filed.
Christian presents a single assignment of error for our review:
The trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for full
disclosure of non-exempt records as appellant had presented a
justiciable claim because appellant had identified a pending proceeding
to which the requested documents would be material.
Law and Analysis
In Christian’s sole assignment of error, he argues that the trial court
erred when it denied his application for non-exempt records because he needed the
records to prepare for an April 2024 parole hearing.
We note that Christian appears pro se on appeal. This court has
previously recognized
a pro se litigant may face certain difficulties when choosing to represent
oneself. Although a pro se litigant may be afforded reasonable latitude,
there are limits to a court’s leniency. Henderson v. Henderson, 2013-
Ohio-2820, ¶ 22 (11th Dist.). Pro se litigants are presumed to have
knowledge of the law and legal procedures, and are held to the same
standard as litigants who are represented by counsel. In re Application
of Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C., 2013-Ohio-5478, ¶ 22.
Saeed v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 2017-Ohio-935, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.).
Therefore, we presume Christian has knowledge of the law and appellate process.
R.C. 149.43 governs the availability of public records. In general, “the
procedures set forth in R.C. 149.43(B) are intended to facilitate the quick disclosure
of records held by a public office.” Hall v. State, 2009-Ohio-404, ¶ 9 (11th Dist.).
Certain exceptions to the basic procedure are also delineated in the statute, and one
such exception applies specifically to prison inmates like Christian.
Relevant to this case, R.C. 149.43(B)(8) provides:
A public office or person responsible for public records is not required
to permit a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a criminal
conviction or juvenile adjudication to inspect or to obtain a copy of any
public record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution or
concerning what would be a criminal investigation or prosecution if the
subject of the investigation or prosecution were an adult, unless the
request to inspect or to obtain a copy of the record is for the purpose of
acquiring information that is subject to release as a public record under
this section and the judge who imposed the sentence or made the
adjudication with respect to the person, or the judge’s successor in
office, finds that the information sought in the public record is
necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim of the
person.
The statue provides that “an inmate will not have a right to copies of
public records until he has followed the separate procedure for obtaining the trial
judge’s approval.” Hall at ¶ 11, citing State ex rel. Cohen v. Mazeika, 2004-Ohio-
3340, ¶ 6 (11th Dist.). Specifically, the trial judge must make a finding that the
information sought by the inmate “is necessary to support what appears to be a
justiciable claim of the person.” R.C. 149.43(B)(8).
“Absent a viable constitutional claim, we review a trial court’s ruling
under R.C. 149.43(B)(8) for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Carr, 2019-Ohio-3802,
¶ 21 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Stinson, 2019-Ohio-401, ¶ 8 (2d Dist.). A trial court
does not abuse its discretion in denying a motion under R.C. 149.43(B)(8) made by
a person who has not demonstrated that he has a justiciable claim or that the public
records he seeks are necessary to support such a claim. Id., citing State v. Reid,
2012-Ohio-1659, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.).
While R.C. 149.43 does not define a “justiciable claim,” this court has
held that “a ‘justiciable claim’ is one that is capable of affording appropriate relief
and ordinarily involves identifying a pending proceeding to which the requested
documents would be material.” State v. Dowell, 2015-Ohio-3237, ¶ 7 (8th Dist.).
Further, other Ohio courts have described a “justiciable claim” as one that is
“‘properly brought before a court of justice for relief.’” State v. Long, 2018-Ohio-
4194, ¶ 10 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Askew, 2017-Ohio-1512, ¶ 11 (11th Dist.); State
v. Seal, 2014-Ohio-4168, ¶ 8 (4th Dist.); State v. Rodriguez, 2014-Ohio-2583, ¶ 14
(12th Dist.); State v. Wilson, 2011-Ohio-4195, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.)
R.C. 2967.01(E) defines “parole” as
regarding a prisoner who is serving a prison term for aggravated
murder or murder. . . a release of the prisoner from confinement in any
state correctional institution by the adult parole authority that is
subject to the eligibility criteria specified in this chapter and that is
under the terms and conditions, and for the period of time, prescribed
by the authority in its published rules and official minutes or required
by division (A) of section 2967.131 of the Revised Code.
Christian filed his public records motion in advance of a parole
hearing in April 2024. “[T]he act of determining parole is not a judicial function,
but is purely executive in nature.” Budd v. Kinkela, 2002-Ohio-4311, ¶ 8 (11th Dist.),
citing Rose v. Haskins, 388 F.2d 91 (6th Cir. 1968). Therefore, a parole hearing is
an executive proceeding, in which no party, including the inmate, is bringing a claim
before a court of justice for relief. As such, a parole hearing is not a “justiciable
claim” pursuant to R.C. 149.43. For this reason, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Christian’s public records motion. Christian’s sole assignment
of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
_
EMANUELLA D. GROVES, JUDGE
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR