State ex rel. Chester v. Doherty , 2024 Ohio 217 ( 2024 )

[Cite as State ex rel. Chester v. Doherty, 2024-Ohio-217.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PORTAGE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. CASE NO. 2023-P-0077
ISAAC CHESTER,
Relator, Original Action for Writ of Mandamus
- vs -
THE HONORABLE:
BECKY L. DOHERTY,
Respondent.
PER CURIAM
OPINION
Decided: January 22, 2024
Judgment: Complaint dismissed
Isaac Chester, pro se, PID# A791-522, Trumbull Correctional Camp, 5701 Burnett
Street, P.O. Box 640, Leavittsburg, OH 44430 (Relator).
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Pamela J. Holder, Assistant
Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Respondent).
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Pending before this court are: respondent, the Honorable Becky L.
Doherty’s, Motion to Dismiss filed on November 14, 2023; and relator, Isaac Chester’s,
Motion to Dismiss Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss filed on December 1, 2023.
{¶2} On October 3, 2023, Chester filed a Complaint for Writ of Mandamus and,
on December 1, 2023, a Complaint for Writ of Mandamus (Corrected).
{¶3} According to the Complaint (Corrected), Chester is the defendant in Portage
County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 21CR00462, presided over by Judge Doherty.
It is further alleged that, in the course of the criminal proceedings, Judge Doherty denied
a Motion to Dismiss for Violating [his] Right to a Speedy Trial on August 10, 2021, and a
Motion to Dismiss for Violating Criminal Rule 32 on August 10, 2022. Chester “prays for
relief, and remedy in the form [of] Vacating the Conviction, and Dismissing the Charges
in Case No. 2021-CR-462, against Relator for Violating his Criminal Rule 32 Rights, and
The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, or be granted such other relief as the court
deems necessary, and appropriate to the Relator[’]s complaint.”
{¶4} Pursuant to R.C. 2731.01: “Mandamus is a writ, issued in the name of the
state to an inferior tribunal, a corporation, board, or person, commanding the performance
of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or
station.”
{¶5} “To demonstrate entitlement to a writ of mandamus, [the relator] must
establish: (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of
the trial court to grant that relief, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.” State ex rel. Cherry v. Breaux, 169 Ohio St.3d 376, 2022-Ohio-1885, 205
N.E.3d 450, ¶ 8.
{¶6} As grounds for dismissal, Judge Doherty asserts that Chester had an
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for challenging these adverse rulings by
way of appeal. State ex rel. Boyd v. Tone, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-3832, __ N.E.3d
__, ¶ 13 (“direct appeal * * * constitutes an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the
law sufficient to defeat a request for a postconviction extraordinary writ”).
2
Case No. 2023-P-0077
{¶7} Chester’s response to the Motion to Dismiss largely focuses on the merits
of the claim that his speedy-trial rights were violated. He has not demonstrated the
inadequacy of appeal as well as postconviction proceedings, both of which he has
pursued in the course of this matter.
{¶8} The “claim that [a relator] was denied his right to a speedy trial is not
cognizable in an extraordinary-writ action.” State ex rel. Barr v. Pittman, 127 Ohio St.3d
32, 2010-Ohio-4989, 936 N.E.2d 43, ¶ 1. Nor does Chester’s claim that “[t]he Respondent
has withheld complete transcripts that hold key dialogue to verify the injustices that the
Relator was subjected to” render existing remedies inadequate. Everett v. Eberlin, 114
Ohio St.3d 199, 2007-Ohio-3832, 870 N.E.2d 1190, ¶ 7 (“[t]he alternate remedy of appeal
* * * was also not rendered inadequate by the alleged failure of his prison to provide
certain records”). Chester was able to raise such arguments in the context of existing
remedies.
{¶9} For the foregoing reasons, Judge Doherty’s Motion to Dismiss is granted
and Chester’s Complaint is, accordingly, dismissed.
EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J., MATT LYNCH, J., JOHN J. EKLUND, J., concur.
3
Case No. 2023-P-0077