DocketNumber: No. 88960.
Citation Numbers: 2007 Ohio 291
Judges: JUDGE JAMES J. SWEENEY.
Filed Date: 1/23/2007
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 2} Initially, we find that Dooley's complaint for a writ of mandamus is procedurally defective. Dooley has failed to comply with the requirements of R.C.
{¶ 3} Notwithstanding the aforesaid procedural defects, we find that Dooley has failed to establish that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus. In order for this court to issue a writ of mandamus, Dooley must establish that: (1) he possesses a clear legal right to discovery from the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor; (2) the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas possesses a clear duty to compel discovery; (3) the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor processes a clear duty to provide the requested discovery; and (4) there exists no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Harris v. Rhodes (1978),
{¶ 10} Pursuant to R.C.
2953.21 , a defendant is entitled to postconviction relief only upon a showing of a violation of constitutional dimension that occurred at the time that the defendant was tried and convicted. State v. Powell (1993),90 Ohio App.3d 260 ,264 ,629 N.E.2d 13 ,16 . * * * Ohio law is clear that discovery is not available in the initial stages of postconviction proceedings. State v. Mason (Oct. 03, 2001), Ashland App. No. 01COA01423,2001 WL 1913877 , citing State v. Byrd (2001),145 Ohio App.3d 318 ,762 N.E.2d 1043 . As noted by this court in State v. Sherman (Oct. 30, 2000), Licking App. No. 00CA39,2000 WL 1634067 : "A petition for postconviction relief is a civil proceeding. State v. Milanovich (1975),42 Ohio St.2d 46 [325 N.E.2d 540 ]. However, the procedure to be followed ruling on such a petition is established by R.C.2953.21 * * * Further, the extent of the trial court's jurisdiction [to grant requests for discovery] is set forth by R.C.2953.21 , and the power to conduct and compel discovery under the Civil rules is not included within the court's statutorily defined authority. State v. Lundgren (Dec. 18, 1998), Lake App. No. 97-L-110, unreported [1998 WL 964592]." Accordingly, since, based on the foregoing, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant discovery motions that are filed after conviction, appellant's argument for DNA testing fails.
State v. Dean,
{¶ 4} See, also, State v. Tiedjen, Cuyahoga App. No. 85674,
{¶ 5} Accordingly, we find that Dooley has failed to establish that he possesses a right to discovery, that the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas possesses any duty to order discovery, and that the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor possesses any duty to provide the requested discovery. The joint motion for summary judgment is granted. Costs to Dooley. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of Appeals serve notice of this judgment upon all parties as required by Civ.R. 58(B).
Writ denied.
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., and KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR