State ex rel. Steiner v. Rinfret

[Cite as State ex rel. Steiner v. Rinfret, 2019-Ohio-3853.]
COURT OF APPEALS
HOLMES COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE ex rel. TIMOTHY STEINER JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P. J.
Relator Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vs-
Case No. 19 CA 3
JUDGE ROBERT D. RINFRET
Respondent OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 23, 2019
APPEARANCES:
For Relator For Respondent
TIMOTHY D. STEINER ROBERT K. HENDRIX
PRO SE ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR
Grafton Correctional Institution 164 East Jackson Street
2500 South Avon Belden Road Millersburg, Ohio 44654
Grafton, Ohio 44044
Holmes County, Case No. 19 CA 3 2
Wise, John, J.
{¶1} On February 19, 2019, Timothy Steiner filed a petition for writ of mandamus
to compel Judge Robert D. Rinfret to correct his sentence by resentencing him under
R.C. 2929.14(B)(3). Mr. Steiner contends Judge Rinfret failed to sentence him under the
statutory requirements for an attempted rape. Thus, Mr. Steiner concludes the sentence
imposed by the trial court is contrary to law. The Holmes County Prosecutor, on behalf
of Judge Rinfret, has moved to dismiss Mr. Steiner’s writ.
{¶2} For a writ of mandamus to issue, the Relator must have a clear legal right
to the relief prayed for, the Respondent must be under a clear legal duty to perform the
requested act, and Relator must have no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary
court of law. (Citations omitted.) State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 29,
451 N.E.2d 225 (1983).
{¶3} The Court grants Judge Rinfret’s motion to dismiss for several reasons.
First, Mr. Steiner’s complaint fails to comply with the procedural requirements of R.C.
2969.25. This statute contains specific filing requirements for inmates who file a civil
action against a government employee or entity. The statutory requirements of R.C.
2969.25 apply here because Judge Rinfret is a “government employee” and the Holmes
County Common Pleas Court is a “government entity” as those terms are defined under
R.C. 2969.21(B)(1)(a) and (C). Further, Mr. Steiner is incarcerated in the Grafton
Correctional Institution and therefore satisfies the definition of “inmate” under R.C.
2969.21(D).
{¶4} Under R.C. 2969.25(A), an inmate who files a civil action or appeal against
a government entity or employee “shall file with the court an affidavit that contains a
Holmes County, Case No. 19 CA 3 3
description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action that the inmate has filed in the
previous five years in any state or federal court.” An inmate is required to strictly comply
with the statute. State ex rel. Swanson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 156 Ohio St.3d
408, 2019-Ohio-1271, ¶ 6. The affidavit must contain certain information, including:
The outcome of the civil action or appeal, including whether the court
dismissed the civil action or appeal as frivolous or malicious under state or
federal law or rule of court, whether the court made an award against the
inmate or the inmate’s counsel of record for frivolous conduct under section
2323.51 of the Revised Code, another statute, or a rule of court, and, if the
court so dismissed the action or appeal or made an award of that nature,
the date of the final order affirming the dismissal or award.
{¶5} R.C. 2969.25(A)(4)
{¶6} Failure to follow the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25(A) in the
commencement of an action requires dismissal. State ex rel. Graham v. Findlay Mun.
Court, 106 Ohio St.3d 63, 2005-Ohio-3671, ¶6. (“The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are
mandatory, and failure to comply with them subject an inmate’s action to dismissal.”)
See also State ex rel. Hall v. Mohr, 140 Ohio St.3d 297, 2014-Ohio-3735, ¶4. Further,
the Ohio Supreme Court recently affirmed the mandatory nature of the statute in
Swanson where the Court dismissed a mandamus action because the inmate failed to
include in his affidavit a mandamus action that he had filed weeks earlier. Swanson,
2019-Ohio-1271, at ¶7.
{¶7} Here, Mr. Steiner failed to attach the required affidavit to his writ of
mandamus. This statutory deficiency alone justifies dismissal of his writ. However, in
Holmes County, Case No. 19 CA 3 4
addition to this statutory deficiency, Mr. Steiner’s writ also fails on its merits because he
had an adequate remedy at law to correct any alleged sentencing error by way of a direct
appeal. See State ex rel. Hunter v. Binette, 154 Ohio St.3d 508, 2018-Ohio-2681, 116
N.E.3d 121, ¶20 citing State ex rel. Ridenour v. O’Connell, 147 Ohio St.3d 351, 2016-
Ohio-7368, 65 N.E.3d 742, ¶3 (“ ‘[S]entencing errors are generally not remediable by
extraordinary writ, because the defendant usually has an adequate remedy at law
available by way of direct appeal.’ ”)
{¶8} Indeed, that is the case here. Mr. Steiner filed a direct appeal from his
conviction and challenged his sentencing on the basis that the trial court improperly
imposed consecutive sentences. The Court rejected this challenge and affirmed his
conviction and sentence. See State v. Steiner, 5th Dist. Holmes No. 15CA17, 2016-Ohio-
4648. Thus, Mr. Steiner had an adequate remedy at law by way of his direct appeal to
challenge the sentencing issue he now raises. A writ may not be used as a substitute for
an appeal or a means of gaining a second chance for appellate review. State ex rel.
Peoples v. Johnson, 152 Ohio St.3d 418, 2017-Ohio-9140, 97 N.E.3d 426, ¶11, citing
State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Gwin, 64 Ohio St.3d 245, 249, 594 N.E.2d 616 (1992).
Holmes County, Case No. 19 CA 3 5
{¶9} For these reasons, Mr. Steiner’s writ is dismissed.
{¶10} The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all parties not in default
notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See Civ.R. 58(B).
By: Wise, John, J.
Gwin, P. J., and
Wise, Earle, J., concur.
JWW/d 0911