[Cite as State ex rel. Mitchell v. Pittman, 2022-Ohio-4466.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. CASE NO. 2022-P-0044 JAMES E. MITCHELL,
Relator, Original Action for Writ of Mandamus
- vs -
PORTAGE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUDGE LAURIE J. PITTMAN,
Respondent.
PER CURIAM OPINION
Decided: December 12, 2022 Judgment: Complaint dismissed
James E. Mitchell, pro se, PID: A293-032, Marion Correctional Institution, 940 Marion- Williamsport Road, P.O. Box 57, Marion, OH 43301 (Relator).
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Theresa M. Scahill, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Respondent).
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} This matter is before the court on the pro se complaint for a writ of
mandamus filed by relator, James E. Mitchell (“Mr. Mitchell”), against respondent, Portage
County Court of Common Pleas Judge Laurie J. Pittman (“Judge Pittman”); Judge
Pittman’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss; and Mr. Mitchell’s memorandum in
opposition. {¶2} Because Mr. Mitchell had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the
law, we grant Judge Pittman’s motion and dismiss Mr. Mitchell’s complaint.
Substantive and Procedural History
{¶3} In 1993, a Portage County grand jury indicted Mr. Mitchell on one count of
rape under R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) and (B) and one count of aggravated burglary under R.C.
2911.11(A)(1) and (B). Mr. Mitchell subsequently pleaded guilty to “burglary, an
aggravated felony of the second degree” under R.C. 2911.12(A)(1) and gross sexual
imposition under R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), a felony of the third degree. In the journal entry
memorializing the guilty pleas, however, the trial court stated that Mr. Mitchell had
pleaded guilty to burglary under R.C. 2911.12(A)(1)(C) and gross sexual imposition under
R.C. 2907.05(A)(1).
{¶4} In 1994, Mr. Mitchell filed a presentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.
The trial court denied the motion and sentenced Mr. Mitchell to three to 15 years in prison
for burglary under R.C. 2911.12(A)(1), “as amended” in the indictment, and two years in
prison for gross sexual imposition under R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), “as amended” in the
indictment. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. Mr. Mitchell
appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion, and this court affirmed. See State v.
Mitchell, 11th Dist. Portage No. 94-P-0070, 1995 WL 411830, *3 (June 23, 1995)
(“Mitchell I”).
{¶5} In 2018, Mr. Mitchell filed a motion for leave of court to dismiss his
indictment. Mr. Mitchell alleged, inter alia, that his speedy trial rights were violated
because the trial court never adjudicated the charges for rape and aggravated burglary.
The trial court denied the motion, and Mr. Mitchell appealed. In State v. Mitchell, 11th
Case No. 2022-P-0044 Dist. Portage No. 2018-P-0047, 2019-Ohio-844 (“Mitchell II”), we explained, in relevant
part, that when Mr. Mitchell pleaded guilty to lesser offenses in 1994, he was “‘terminating
the incident and could not be called on to account further on any charges regarding this
incident.’” Id. at ¶ 21, quoting State v. Carpenter, 68 Ohio St.3d 59, 62, 623 N.E.2d 66
(1993). Thus, we determined there are no charges pending against him. Id. The
Supreme Court of Ohio declined to review our decision. See State v. Mitchell, 156 Ohio
St.3d 1445, 2019-Ohio-2498, 125 N.E.3d 926 (“Mitchell III”).
{¶6} In 2019, Mr. Mitchell filed several postconviction motions, including a
“motion to correct journal entry,” a “motion for re-sentencing pursuant to Crim.R. 43(A),”
a “motion for final appealable order pursuant to Crim.R. 32(C) and R.C. 2505.02,” and a
“motion for corrected sentencing entry.” Mr. Mitchell argued, in relevant part, that the
sentencing entry was a not a final appealable order because the trial court did not resolve
the charges of rape and aggravated burglary. The trial court denied the motions, and Mr.
Mitchell appealed.
{¶7} In State v. Mitchell, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2019-P-0105, 2020-Ohio-3417,
¶ 54-76 (“Mitchell IV”), we determined, in relevant part, that the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to consider Mr. Mitchell’s request for a final appealable order. Id. at ¶ 60, ¶
67. We stated that even if the trial court had jurisdiction, Mr. Mitchell’s request was barred
by the doctrines of res judicata and the law of the case. See id. at ¶ 68-73. We noted
that Mr. Mitchell had previously made this argument in the context of his speedy trial
rights, and we reiterated that there are no charges pending against him. Id. at ¶ 74.
{¶8} We reversed the trial court’s judgments to the extent Mr. Mitchell sought the
correction of clerical mistakes. Id. at ¶ 89. We remanded to the trial court with instructions
Case No. 2022-P-0044 to (1) issue a nunc pro tunc entry memorializing Mr. Mitchell’s guilty pleas that “deletes
the reference to ‘the amended Indictment’” and “replaces the citation to ‘R.C.
2907.05(A)(1)’ with ‘R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)’” and (2) issue a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry
stating that Mr. Mitchell was convicted of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C.
2907.05(A)(4) and burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(1) and that “deletes the
phrases” referring to an “amended” indictment. Id. at ¶ 90-91. We emphasized that the
nunc pro tunc entries would not constitute new final orders from which Mr. Mitchell could
appeal. Id. at ¶ 92.
{¶9} The Supreme Court of Ohio declined to review our decision. See State v.
Mitchell, 160 Ohio St.3d 1495, 2020-Ohio-5634, 159 N.E.3d 274 (“Mitchell V”). The court
also denied Mr. Mitchell’s motion for leave to file a delayed appeal of our decision in
Mitchell I. See State v. Mitchell, 160 Ohio St.3d 1494, 2020-Ohio-5634, 159 N.E.3d 280
(“Mitchell VI”).
{¶10} On August 19, 2022, Mr. Mitchell filed a complaint in this court seeking a
writ of mandamus to compel Judge Pittman to dispose of the charges of rape and
aggravated burglary and to provide a final appealable order that complies with Crim.R.
32(C). Judge Pittman filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Mitchell’s complaint pursuant Civ.R.
12(B)(6) for failure to state a valid claim for relief. Mr. Mitchell filed a brief in opposition
to Judge Pittman’s motion.
Standard of Review
{¶11} “To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a party must establish, by clear and
convincing evidence, (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty
on the part of the respondent to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the
Case No. 2022-P-0044 ordinary course of the law.” State ex rel. Sands v. Culotta, 165 Ohio St.3d 172, 2021-
Ohio-1137, 176 N.E.3d 735, ¶ 11. “For a court to dismiss a mandamus complaint
pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it
must appear beyond doubt from the complaint that the relator can prove no set of facts
warranting relief, after all factual allegations of the complaint are presumed true, and all
reasonable inferences are made in the relator’s favor.” Id.
Law and Analysis
{¶12} The Supreme Court of Ohio has explained that “‘[t]he availability of an
appeal is an adequate remedy sufficient to preclude a writ.’” State ex rel. Peoples v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State ex rel. Mitchell v. Pittman, 2022-Ohio-4466.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. CASE NO. 2022-P-0044 JAMES E. MITCHELL,
Relator, Original Action for Writ of Mandamus
- vs -
PORTAGE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUDGE LAURIE J. PITTMAN,
Respondent.
PER CURIAM OPINION
Decided: December 12, 2022 Judgment: Complaint dismissed
James E. Mitchell, pro se, PID: A293-032, Marion Correctional Institution, 940 Marion- Williamsport Road, P.O. Box 57, Marion, OH 43301 (Relator).
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Theresa M. Scahill, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Respondent).
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} This matter is before the court on the pro se complaint for a writ of
mandamus filed by relator, James E. Mitchell (“Mr. Mitchell”), against respondent, Portage
County Court of Common Pleas Judge Laurie J. Pittman (“Judge Pittman”); Judge
Pittman’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss; and Mr. Mitchell’s memorandum in
opposition. {¶2} Because Mr. Mitchell had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the
law, we grant Judge Pittman’s motion and dismiss Mr. Mitchell’s complaint.
Substantive and Procedural History
{¶3} In 1993, a Portage County grand jury indicted Mr. Mitchell on one count of
rape under R.C. 2907.02(A)(2) and (B) and one count of aggravated burglary under R.C.
2911.11(A)(1) and (B). Mr. Mitchell subsequently pleaded guilty to “burglary, an
aggravated felony of the second degree” under R.C. 2911.12(A)(1) and gross sexual
imposition under R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), a felony of the third degree. In the journal entry
memorializing the guilty pleas, however, the trial court stated that Mr. Mitchell had
pleaded guilty to burglary under R.C. 2911.12(A)(1)(C) and gross sexual imposition under
R.C. 2907.05(A)(1).
{¶4} In 1994, Mr. Mitchell filed a presentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.
The trial court denied the motion and sentenced Mr. Mitchell to three to 15 years in prison
for burglary under R.C. 2911.12(A)(1), “as amended” in the indictment, and two years in
prison for gross sexual imposition under R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), “as amended” in the
indictment. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. Mr. Mitchell
appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion, and this court affirmed. See State v.
Mitchell, 11th Dist. Portage No. 94-P-0070, 1995 WL 411830, *3 (June 23, 1995)
(“Mitchell I”).
{¶5} In 2018, Mr. Mitchell filed a motion for leave of court to dismiss his
indictment. Mr. Mitchell alleged, inter alia, that his speedy trial rights were violated
because the trial court never adjudicated the charges for rape and aggravated burglary.
The trial court denied the motion, and Mr. Mitchell appealed. In State v. Mitchell, 11th
Case No. 2022-P-0044 Dist. Portage No. 2018-P-0047, 2019-Ohio-844 (“Mitchell II”), we explained, in relevant
part, that when Mr. Mitchell pleaded guilty to lesser offenses in 1994, he was “‘terminating
the incident and could not be called on to account further on any charges regarding this
incident.’” Id. at ¶ 21, quoting State v. Carpenter, 68 Ohio St.3d 59, 62, 623 N.E.2d 66
(1993). Thus, we determined there are no charges pending against him. Id. The
Supreme Court of Ohio declined to review our decision. See State v. Mitchell, 156 Ohio
St.3d 1445, 2019-Ohio-2498, 125 N.E.3d 926 (“Mitchell III”).
{¶6} In 2019, Mr. Mitchell filed several postconviction motions, including a
“motion to correct journal entry,” a “motion for re-sentencing pursuant to Crim.R. 43(A),”
a “motion for final appealable order pursuant to Crim.R. 32(C) and R.C. 2505.02,” and a
“motion for corrected sentencing entry.” Mr. Mitchell argued, in relevant part, that the
sentencing entry was a not a final appealable order because the trial court did not resolve
the charges of rape and aggravated burglary. The trial court denied the motions, and Mr.
Mitchell appealed.
{¶7} In State v. Mitchell, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2019-P-0105, 2020-Ohio-3417,
¶ 54-76 (“Mitchell IV”), we determined, in relevant part, that the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to consider Mr. Mitchell’s request for a final appealable order. Id. at ¶ 60, ¶
67. We stated that even if the trial court had jurisdiction, Mr. Mitchell’s request was barred
by the doctrines of res judicata and the law of the case. See id. at ¶ 68-73. We noted
that Mr. Mitchell had previously made this argument in the context of his speedy trial
rights, and we reiterated that there are no charges pending against him. Id. at ¶ 74.
{¶8} We reversed the trial court’s judgments to the extent Mr. Mitchell sought the
correction of clerical mistakes. Id. at ¶ 89. We remanded to the trial court with instructions
Case No. 2022-P-0044 to (1) issue a nunc pro tunc entry memorializing Mr. Mitchell’s guilty pleas that “deletes
the reference to ‘the amended Indictment’” and “replaces the citation to ‘R.C.
2907.05(A)(1)’ with ‘R.C. 2907.05(A)(4)’” and (2) issue a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry
stating that Mr. Mitchell was convicted of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C.
2907.05(A)(4) and burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(1) and that “deletes the
phrases” referring to an “amended” indictment. Id. at ¶ 90-91. We emphasized that the
nunc pro tunc entries would not constitute new final orders from which Mr. Mitchell could
appeal. Id. at ¶ 92.
{¶9} The Supreme Court of Ohio declined to review our decision. See State v.
Mitchell, 160 Ohio St.3d 1495, 2020-Ohio-5634, 159 N.E.3d 274 (“Mitchell V”). The court
also denied Mr. Mitchell’s motion for leave to file a delayed appeal of our decision in
Mitchell I. See State v. Mitchell, 160 Ohio St.3d 1494, 2020-Ohio-5634, 159 N.E.3d 280
(“Mitchell VI”).
{¶10} On August 19, 2022, Mr. Mitchell filed a complaint in this court seeking a
writ of mandamus to compel Judge Pittman to dispose of the charges of rape and
aggravated burglary and to provide a final appealable order that complies with Crim.R.
32(C). Judge Pittman filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Mitchell’s complaint pursuant Civ.R.
12(B)(6) for failure to state a valid claim for relief. Mr. Mitchell filed a brief in opposition
to Judge Pittman’s motion.
Standard of Review
{¶11} “To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a party must establish, by clear and
convincing evidence, (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty
on the part of the respondent to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the
Case No. 2022-P-0044 ordinary course of the law.” State ex rel. Sands v. Culotta, 165 Ohio St.3d 172, 2021-
Ohio-1137, 176 N.E.3d 735, ¶ 11. “For a court to dismiss a mandamus complaint
pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it
must appear beyond doubt from the complaint that the relator can prove no set of facts
warranting relief, after all factual allegations of the complaint are presumed true, and all
reasonable inferences are made in the relator’s favor.” Id.
Law and Analysis
{¶12} The Supreme Court of Ohio has explained that “‘[t]he availability of an
appeal is an adequate remedy sufficient to preclude a writ.’” State ex rel. Peoples v.
Johnson, 152 Ohio St.3d 418, 2017-Ohio-9140, 97 N.E.3d 426, ¶ 11, quoting State ex
rel. Luoma v. Russo, 141 Ohio St.3d 53, 2014-Ohio-4532, 21 N.E.3d 305, ¶ 8. Moreover,
“‘extraordinary writs may not be used as a substitute for an otherwise barred second
appeal or to gain successive appellate reviews of the same issue.’” Id., quoting State ex
rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Gwin, 64 Ohio St.3d 245, 249, 594 N.E.2d 616 (1992). “And the fact
that a prior appeal was unsuccessful or even wrongly decided does not mean that it was
not an adequate remedy.” (Emphasis sic.) Id.
{¶13} Here, Mr. Mitchell exercised an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
the law by appealing the trial court’s denial of his presentence motion to withdraw his
guilty pleas. He exercised additional adequate remedies by appealing the trial court’s
denial of his postconviction motions. The Supreme Court of Ohio declined to review our
decisions. Thus, Mr. Mitchell is not entitled to extraordinary relief in mandamus. See
Peoples at ¶ 12.
Case No. 2022-P-0044 {¶14} In addition, Mr. Mitchell’s complaint demonstrates that he has previously
and unsuccessfully raised his current argument. Thus, Mr. Mitchell is foreclosed from
relitigating the same issue in this writ action. See Peoples at ¶ 14; State ex rel. Woods
v. Dinkelacker, 152 Ohio St.3d 142, 2017-Ohio-9124, 93 N.E.3d 965, ¶ 7 (mandamus
relief barred where the relator acknowledged he unsuccessfully raised the same
argument in a prior motion).
{¶15} Mr. Mitchell relies on State ex rel. McIntyre v. Summit Cty. Court of Common
Pleas, 144 Ohio St.3d 589, 2015-Ohio-5343, 45 N.E.3d 1003, where the Supreme Court
of Ohio issued a peremptory writ of mandamus directing a trial court to issue a final,
appealable order disposing of all the charges against the relator. Id. at ¶ 11. In that case,
however, a jury was unable to reach a verdict on an amended charge, and none of the
trial court’s subsequent orders addressed it. See id. at ¶ 3-6, ¶ 9-10. Here, we have
expressly stated on two prior occasions that there are no charges pending against Mr.
Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell’s apparent disagreement with our determination does not constitute
a valid basis for mandamus relief.
{¶16} For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pittman’s motion to dismiss is granted,
and Mr. Mitchell’s complaint is dismissed.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J., MARY JANE TRAPP, J., MATT LYNCH, J., concur.
Case No. 2022-P-0044