Gassaway v. Muskingum Cty. Common Pleas Court

[Cite as Gassaway v. Muskingum Cty. Common Pleas Court, 2019-Ohio-4197.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
FRANKLIN L. GASSAWAY : JUDGES:
:
Relator/Petitioner : Hon., John W. Wise, PJ.
: Hon., Patricia A. Delaney, J.
: Hon., Earle E. Wise Jr., J.
-vs- :
:
MUSKINGUM COUNTY COMMON : Case No. CT2019-0018
PLEAS COURT :
:
:
:
Respondent : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Procedendo and
Writ of Mandamus
JUDGMENT: DENIED
DATE OF JUDGMENT: October 7, 2019
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner: For Respondent:
Franklin L. Gassaway D. Michael Haddox
A547-361 Prosecuting Attorney
Belmont Correctional Institution Muskingum County
68518 Bannock Road Taylor P. Bennington
St. Clairsville, OH 43950 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
27 North 5th Street, Suite 43701
Zanesville, Ohio 43701
Delaney, J.
{¶1} On March 20, 2019, Franklin Gassaway filed a petition for Corrected Writ
of Procedendo. On this same date, he also filed a Verified Complaint for Writ of
Mandamus. In both documents, Mr. Gassaway requests the same relief. Namely, that he
be provided, at state expense, with a copy of transcripts and pleadings from case number
CR2006-0401. The Muskingum County Prosecutor filed a memorandum opposing Mr.
Gassaway’s writ.
{¶2} “A writ of procedendo is appropriate when a court has either refused to
render a judgment or has unnecessarily delayed proceeding to judgment.” State ex rel.
Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461, 462, 650 N.E.2d
899 (1995), citing State ex rel. Doe v. Tracy, 51 Ohio App.3d 198, 200, 555 N.E.2d 674(12th Dist.1988). For a writ of procedendo to issue, relator must establish a clear legal
right to the relief requested and there must be no adequate remedy at law. Sherrills at
462, citing State ex rel. Brown v. Shoemaker, 38 Ohio St.3d 344, 345, 528 N.E.2d 188(1988). Relator must also establish a clear legal duty on the part of the court to proceed
when the case is still at the pleading stage. Sherrills at 462. (Citations omitted.)
{¶3} Here, Mr. Gassaway does not allege that the trial court refused to rule on
his Motion for Preparation of Complete Transcript of Proceedings at State Expense that
he filed on September 17, 2018. Rather, Mr. Gassaway is dissatisfied with the fact that
the trial court denied his motion by way of a Judgment Entry filed on October 23, 2018.
Because the trial court ruled on his motion, Mr. Gassaway can prove no set of facts
establishing that he is entitled to extraordinary relief under a writ of procedendo.
{¶4} Further, Mr. Gassaway had an adequate remedy at law following the trial
court’s denial of his motion by way of a direct appeal. See State v. Hewitt, 5th Dist. Stark
No. 2016CA00067, 2016-Ohio-5762, ¶14, where this Court determined the denial of a
motion for transcripts, at state expense, is a final, appealable order.
{¶5} Further, this same conclusion is reached even if the Court addresses Mr.
Gassaway’s complaint as one for mandamus. For a writ of mandamus to issue, relator
must have a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, 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 course of law. (Citations omitted.) State ex rel. Berger v.
McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 29, 451 N.E.2d 225 (1983). For the same reason stated
above, Mr. Gassaway had an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal and therefore,
he is also not entitled to relief under a writ of mandamus.
{¶6} Finally, we address Mr. Gassaway’s argument that he needs copies of the
transcript and trial court pleadings so he can perfect post-conviction filings that cannot be
filed without these documents. Verified Complaint, Mar. 20, 2019, ¶5. In Hewitt, this Court
explained that an indigent prisoner is entitled to relevant portions of a transcript upon
appeal or in seeking post-conviction relief. Hewitt at ¶ 16. (Citation omitted.) However,
one limitation is that the appeal or post-conviction action must be pending at the time the
transcript is sought. Id., citing State ex rel. Partee v. McMahon, 175 Ohio St. 243, 245,
193 N.E.2d 266 (1963); State ex rel. Catlino v. Clerk of Courts, 9 Ohio St.2d 101, 224
N.E.2d 130 (1967); State ex rel. Clark v. Marshall, 63 Ohio St.2d 107, 406 N.E.2d 1128(1980). As pled, there is no indication that Mr. Gassaway currently has a post-conviction
action pending. Therefore, this too serves as an independent basis to deny the requested
extraordinary relief.
{¶7} For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Gassaway’s writ of procedendo and/or
mandamus is denied.
{¶8} 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).