State ex rel. Chester v. Doherty

2024 Ohio 5437

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Chester v. Doherty, 2024-Ohio-5437.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. CASE NO. 2024-P-0042 ISAAC CHESTER,

Relator, Original Action for Writ of Mandamus

- vs -

BECKY L. DOHERTY,

Respondent.

OPINION

Decided: November 18, 2024 Judgment: Petition dismissed

Isaac Chester, pro se, PID# A791-522, Richland Correctional Institution, 1001 Olivesburg Road, P.O. Box 8107, Mansfield, OH 44901 (Relator).

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Pamela J. Holder, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Respondent).

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} This matter is before the court on a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by

relator, Isaac Chester (“Mr. Chester”), against respondent, Judge Becky L. Doherty of the

Portage County Court of Common Pleas (“respondent”), respondent’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6)

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and Mr. Chester’s motion for summary

judgment. For the reasons that follow, respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted, Mr.

Chester’s petition is dismissed, and Mr. Chester’s motion for summary judgment is

overruled. {¶2} Mr. Chester, who is currently incarcerated, filed a postconviction petition on

February 8, 2023, in the Portage County Court of Common Pleas. On July 27, 2023,

respondent denied his petition without a hearing. Mr. Chester contends respondent failed

to comply with R.C. 2953.21(D), (F), and (H) because no hearing was held and there were

no findings of fact and conclusions of law in the judgment entry. Mr. Chester also seeks

statutory damages pursuant to R.C. 149.43(C)(2).

{¶3} Respondent filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss Mr. Chester’s petition

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Respondent contends that

Mr. Chester had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by way of an appeal.

{¶4} Mr. Chester responded with a motion for summary judgment, in which he

argues that a judgment denying a petition for postconviction relief without findings of fact

and conclusions of law is not a final appealable order. Mr. Chester also notes that he

filed a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal in this court, but it was overruled, and his

appeal was dismissed.

{¶5} “[I]n order for a writ of mandamus to issue the relator must demonstrate (1)

a clear legal right to the relief prayed for; (2) respondents are under a clear duty to perform

the acts; and (3) relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”

State ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 38 Ohio St.3d 79, 80 (1988).

{¶6} “A court can dismiss a mandamus action under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted if, after all factual allegations of the

complaint are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are made in the relator’s

favor, it appears beyond doubt that he can prove no set of facts entitling him to the

requested writ of mandamus.” State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 2006-Ohio-5858, ¶ 9.

Case No. 2024-P-0042 {¶7} Mr. Chester is correct insofar as “R.C. 2953.21 requires a trial court to

issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when dismissing or denying a postconviction-

relief petition. R.C. 2953.21(H) states, ‘If the court does not find grounds for granting

relief, it shall make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall enter judgment

denying relief on the petition.’ See also R.C. 2953.21(D). And if a court fails to do so, its

decision is subject to reversal on appeal.” State ex rel. Penland v. Dinkelacker, 2020-

Ohio-3774, ¶ 20.

{¶8} However, in Dinkelacker, contrary to Mr. Chester’s assertion, the Supreme

Court of Ohio clarified that “[t]he statutory mandate that a trial court issue findings of fact

and conclusions of law does not transform the trial court’s failure to do so into a

jurisdictional defect,” i.e., a lack of a final appealable order. Id. at ¶ 21. Rather, it is “an

error that may be corrected through an appeal.” Id. at ¶ 3. The court explicitly overruled

its prior decisions in State ex rel. Ferrell v. Clark, 13 Ohio St.3d 3 (1984), and State v.

Mapson, 1 Ohio St.3d 217 (1982), to the extent they “wrongly suggest that a judgment

dismissing or denying postconviction relief is not a final, appealable order if it fails to

include findings of fact and conclusions of law.” Id. at ¶ 29. The court concluded that

when the trial court fails to include such findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is “barred

from issuing a writ of mandamus [since] the relator has or had an adequate remedy at

law to obtain the requested relief.” Id. at ¶ 6; see R.C. 2731.05.

{¶9} In the instant case, the trial court denied Mr. Chester’s petition in July

2023. Mr. Chester waited approximately nine months to file a motion for leave to file a

delayed appeal of that judgment in May 2024. One month later, this court dismissed Mr.

Case No. 2024-P-0042 Chester’s appeal because it was untimely and motions for leave to file a delayed appeal

are not applicable to civil appeals.

{¶10} In sum, Mr. Chester had an adequate remedy by law to challenge the trial

court’s failure to issue findings and conclusions. Dinkelacker, 2020-Ohio-3774, at ¶ 6.

See also State ex rel. Conard v. Sezon, 2021-Ohio-1371, ¶ 6 (11th Dist.) (assuming the

relator’s factual allegations that the respondent denied his postconviction petition for relief

without findings of fact and conclusions of law are true, the relator can prove no set of

facts warranting recovery in mandamus).

{¶11} Upon construing Mr. Chester’s allegations in a manner most favorable to

him, Mr. Chester fails to state a claim upon which relief in mandamus can be granted.

{¶12} Accordingly, we grant respondent’s motion to dismiss, dismiss Mr.

Chester’s petition, and overrule his motion for summary judgment.

MARY JANE TRAPP, J., MATT LYNCH, J., ROBERT J. PATTON, J., concur.

Case No. 2024-P-0042