State ex rel. Blanton v. Hany

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Blanton v. Hany

2012 Ohio 4195, 976 N.E.2d 860, 133 Ohio St. 3d 120

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 18, 2012

Docket2012-0719

StatusPublished

This text of 2012 Ohio 4195 (State ex rel. Blanton v. Hany) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Blanton v. Hany, 2012 Ohio 4195, 976 N.E.2d 860, 133 Ohio St. 3d 120 (Ohio 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request of appellant, Kyle W. Blanton, for a writ of mandamus. Blanton asked that appellee, Ottawa County Municipal Court Judge Frederick C. Hany II, be ordered to vacate his judgment dismissing a misdemeanor case against Blanton. The dismissal allowed the state to seek a felony indictment against him. Blanton also seeks a hearing to consider Blanton’s “counterclaim” against dismissal. Blanton appealed the dismissal of the municipal court case. The appeal was dismissed but has been reinstated.

{¶ 2} Blanton had an adequate legal remedy by way of his reinstated appeal from the judgment dismissing his case. Mandamus will not issue when the relator has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. R.C. 2731.05; see also State ex rel. Nickleson v. Mayberry, 131 Ohio St.3d 416, 2012-Ohio-1300, 965 N.E.2d 1000, ¶ 2; State v. Sweet, 72 Ohio St.3d 375, 376, 650 N.E.2d 450 (1995) (defendant could have raised on appeal the allegation that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial court’s violation of Crim.R. 48(A) in dismissing indictments). Insofar as he additionally claims that Judge Hany failed to comply with Crim.R. 12(F) by failing to state his findings in determining the motion, this *121 contention is “regularly addressed on appeal.” State ex rel. Ross v. State, 102 Ohio St.3d 73, 2004-Ohio-1827, 806 N.E.2d 553, ¶ 5. And “ ‘even if these [alternate] remedies are no longer available to [defendant], he is not thereby entitled to an extraordinary writ.’ ” Id. at ¶ 6, quoting Jackson v. Wilson, 100 Ohio St.3d 315, 2003-Ohio-6112, 798 N.E.2d 1086, ¶ 9.

Kyle W. Blanton, pro se. Mark E. Mulligan, Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew M. Bigler, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request of appellant, Kyle W. Blanton, for a writ of mandamus. Blanton asked that appellee, Ottawa County Municipal Court Judge Frederick C. Hany II, be ordered to vacate his judgment dismissing a misdemeanor case against Blanton. The dismissal allowed the state to seek a felony indictment against him. Blanton also seeks a hearing to consider Blanton’s “counterclaim” against dismissal. Blanton appealed the dismissal of the municipal court case. The appeal was dismissed but has been reinstated.

{¶ 2} Blanton had an adequate legal remedy by way of his reinstated appeal from the judgment dismissing his case. Mandamus will not issue when the relator has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. R.C. 2731.05; see also State ex rel. Nickleson v. Mayberry, 131 Ohio St.3d 416, 2012-Ohio-1300, 965 N.E.2d 1000, ¶ 2; State v. Sweet, 72 Ohio St.3d 375, 376, 650 N.E.2d 450 (1995) (defendant could have raised on appeal the allegation that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial court’s violation of Crim.R. 48(A) in dismissing indictments). Insofar as he additionally claims that Judge Hany failed to comply with Crim.R. 12(F) by failing to state his findings in determining the motion, this *121 contention is “regularly addressed on appeal.” State ex rel. Ross v. State, 102 Ohio St.3d 73, 2004-Ohio-1827, 806 N.E.2d 553, ¶ 5. And “ ‘even if these [alternate] remedies are no longer available to [defendant], he is not thereby entitled to an extraordinary writ.’ ” Id. at ¶ 6, quoting Jackson v. Wilson, 100 Ohio St.3d 315, 2003-Ohio-6112, 798 N.E.2d 1086, ¶ 9.

Kyle W. Blanton, pro se. Mark E. Mulligan, Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew M. Bigler, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2012 Ohio 4195, 976 N.E.2d 860, 133 Ohio St. 3d 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-blanton-v-hany-ohio-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack