State v. Patterson ( 2023 )

[Cite as State v. Patterson, 2023-Ohio-4596.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
TRUMBULL COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2023-T-0059
Respondent,
Original Action for Writ of Mandamus
- vs -
LUKE D. PATTERSON,
Relator.
PER CURIAM
OPINION
Decided: December 18, 2023
Judgment: Petition dismissed
Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ryan J. Sanders, Assistant
Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH
44481 (For Respondent).
Luke D. Patterson, pro se, Reg. No. 60459-060, FCI Gilmer Federal Correctional
Institution, P.O. Box 6000, Glenville, WV 26351 (Relator).
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Before this court is relator, Luke D. Patterson’s, Petition for Mandamus. The
State of Ohio has filed a Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), claiming that
Patterson can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief. For the following reasons,
Patterson’s Petition for Mandamus is dismissed.
{¶2} On August 17, 2023, Patterson filed his Petition for Mandamus. Patterson
alleges that after pleading guilty to offenses of Aggravated Robbery and firearm
specifications in an amended indictment in Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. 2001 CR 00001 and serving a prison term, he was subsequently charged
federally for being a felon in possession of a firearm and “was sentenced to 15 years
mandatory minimum due to the 3 counts listed on his ORIGINAL indictment” in Case No
2001 CR 00001. He contends that his federal charges were impacted by the failure to
document that there was an amended indictment in Case No. 2001 CR 00001.
{¶3} Patterson filed a “Writ of Error Coram Nobis” on June 9, 2022, in the
Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, requesting the court to “remove from the record
or seal the document case number [2001 CR 00001], due to the civil disability that said
case has caused.” Patterson argues that “it is the duty of the State of Ohio, after learning
of this disability to grant relief, to resolve this matter due to the fact of the lower court’s
error in properly filing documentation.” He requests that this court “grant this petition and
ORDER that the Common Pleas Court for Trumbull County expedite its decision” and
grant his “Writ of Error Coram Nobis.”
{¶4} The State of Ohio filed a Motion to Dismiss, in which it argues that the lower
court ruled on Patterson’s motion and, thus, no relief is warranted.
{¶5} “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.” R.C. 2731.01. “To
be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the relator must be able to prove that: (1) he has a
clear legal right to have a specific act performed by a public official; (2) the public official
has a clear legal duty to perform that act; and (3) there is no legal remedy that could be
pursued to adequately resolve the matter.” State ex rel. Vance v. Kontos, 11th Dist.
Trumbull No. 2014-T-0078, 2014-Ohio-5080, ¶ 9.
2
Case No. 2023-T-0059
{¶6} As an initial matter, we observe that the State of Ohio has been identified
as the respondent in this action. Although arguing that the State should “resolve this
matter,” it appears Patterson is actually seeking a writ ordering action by the Trumbull
County Court of Common Pleas, which is the entity with the authority to seal or remove
documents from its record and to rule on the “Writ of Error Coram Nobis.”
{¶7} To the extent that Patterson seeks an order for the lower court to “expedite
its decision,” we observe that the trial court issued an August 18, 2023 Judgment Entry
denying his “Writ of Error Coram Nobis.” “[I]f the trial judge has already performed the
particular act which the relator seeks to compel, the merits of the mandamus claim will be
considered moot and the entire action will be subject to dismissal.” State ex rel. Verbanik
v. Girard Mun. Court Judge Bernard, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2006-T-0080, 2007-Ohio-
1786, ¶ 7; State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman, 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163 (1983) (a writ
of mandamus “will not issue to compel a public official to perform a legal duty which has
been completed”) (citations omitted).
{¶8} Patterson also requested as relief that this court order the lower court to
grant his “Writ of Error” and contends in his response to the motion to dismiss that the
Writ was improperly denied. However, this court “cannot grant a writ of mandamus
ordering the lower court to either rule in a certain manner or to grant relator’s motions.”
Clough v. Lawson, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2012-L-118, 2012-Ohio-5831, ¶ 9. A writ of
mandamus “cannot be used as a means of mandating a trial judge’s holding on a
particular matter; that is, while the writ will lie to require a judge to dispose of a pending
motion, it will not lie to require a specific ruling.” Verbanik at ¶ 6 (“although the writ can
be employed to force a judge to go forward and exercise his discretion, it cannot be
3
Case No. 2023-T-0059
used to actually control the judge’s discretion”).
{¶9} We observe that, on the final page of his September 11, 2023 Response to
the Motion to Dismiss, Patterson included a “Notice of Appeal,” stating that he appeals
from the trial court’s August 18, 2023 entry. This “Notice” was not separately time
stamped or docketed. In order to properly appeal from a trial court judgment, a party
must comply with App.R. 3 and Loc.App.R. 3. App.R. 3(A) requires that an appeal be
instituted by “filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the trial court.” Patterson did not
file the “Notice” with the trial court but instead in the court of appeals attached to his
response. “A notice of appeal that is only filed in [the] appellate court does not invoke our
jurisdiction.” State v. Armstrong, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29084, 2021-Ohio-3530, ¶ 3.
Further, Loc.App.R. 3(B)(1) requires an appellant to pay a cost deposit or file an affidavit
of inability to secure costs by prepayment. There is no indication that Patterson paid a
deposit or filed an affidavit for waiver of prepayment as required to initiate an appeal.
Patterson’s “Notice of Appeal” was not properly filed and is not recognized as instituting
an appeal before this court.
{¶10} For the foregoing reasons, the respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted
and the Petition for Mandamus is dismissed.
JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J., MATT LYNCH, J., EUGENE A. LUCCI, J., concur.
4
Case No. 2023-T-0059