State ex rel. Walker v. Pittman

2025 Ohio 4533

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 2025-P-0035
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State ex rel. Walker v. Pittman, 2025-Ohio-4533.]

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

STATE OF OHIO ex rel. CASE NO. 2025-P-0035 GARY D. WALKER,

Relator Original Action for Peremptory and - vs - Alternative Writ of Mandamus

JUDGE LAURIE PITTMAN OF PORTAGE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,

Respondent.

PER CURIAM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Decided: September 29, 2025 Judgment: Petition dismissed

Gary D. Walker, pro se, 2061 Hampstead Road, Cleveland Heights, OH 44118 (Relator).

Connie J. Lewandowski, Portage County Prosecutor, and Theresa M. Scahill, Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Respondent).

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Pending before this court is relator, Gary D. Walker’s, petition for a writ of

mandamus. Respondent, Judge Laurie Pittman, has filed a motion to dismiss. For the

following reasons, we grant Judge Pittman’s motion and dismiss Walker’s petition.

Basis for Petition

{¶2} On June 10, 2025, Walker filed his mandamus petition. Therein, he

requests this court issue an order “to quash the arrest warrant and dismiss the pending

cases against him due to the State’s failure to bring Relator to trial within the 180-day period mandated by R.C. 2941.401.”

{¶3} Pursuant to his petition and attached records, Walker was incarcerated in

the Lorain Correctional Institution in October 2024. On October 1, 2024, in Portage

County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2024 CR 00835, the grand jury indicted Walker

for Failure to Appear. Walker sent requests for final disposition of that case to the Portage

County Prosecutor and Court of Common Pleas. He argues that the State had until April

19, 2025, to bring him to trial and failed to do so. In May 2025, he filed a motion to dismiss

and quash arrest warrant in the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, requesting the

charge be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to the failure to bring him to trial within

180 days after he gave statutory notice under R.C. 2941.401. The case remains pending

before the trial court. In the present matter, Walker argues that the failure to bring him to

trial within 180 days must result in an order to dismiss the charge against him.

{¶4} Judge Pittman filed a motion to dismiss Walker’s petition on August 6, 2025,

arguing that speedy trial claims are not cognizable in mandamus.

Dismissal of Mandamus Claims

{¶5} “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.

{¶6} Generally, a relator must be able to satisfy the following three elements to

be entitled to a writ of mandamus: “(1) the relator must have a clear legal right to have

the public official perform a particular act; (2) the official must have a clear legal duty to

PAGE 2 OF 5

Case No. 2025-P-0035 do the act; and (3) the relator does not have another adequate remedy at law.” State ex

rel. Brown v. Logan, 2004-Ohio-6951, ¶ 4 (11th Dist.), citing State ex rel. Greene v.

Enright, 63 Ohio St.3d 729 (1992).

Adequate Remedy by Way of Appeal

{¶7} Walker sought to be brought to trial within 180 days under R.C. 2941.401.

That statute provides that if an individual who is imprisoned against which there is pending

an untried indictment delivers written notice of the place of their imprisonment and

requests final disposition, “the prisoner shall be brought to trial within one hundred eighty

days.” R.C. 2941.401.

{¶8} As respondent asserts, it has generally been held that denial of the right to

speedy trial “is not cognizable in an extraordinary-writ proceeding” since there is an

adequate remedy by way of appeal. State ex rel. Jackim v. Ambrose, 2008-Ohio-3182,

¶ 6; Hamilton v. Collins, 2003-Ohio-5703, ¶ 5 (11th Dist.) (“if relator is ultimately

convicted,” he can contest the speedy trial issue in a direct appeal).

{¶9} Walker argues that the foregoing authority does not apply since this is not

a speedy trial issue but an issue of loss of jurisdiction when he was not brought to trial

within 180 days as set forth by R.C. 2941.401. However, the Ohio Supreme Court has

specifically held that a relator’s request compelling the dismissal of charges on the ground

that a case was not tried within 180 days after a demand for trial under R.C. 2941.401 is

not properly addressed through a mandamus action since there lies an adequate remedy

at law through pursual of such claim in the trial court. State ex rel. Bowling v. Court of

Common Pleas of Hamilton Cty., 24 Ohio St.2d 158 (1970). Also State ex rel. Rendell v.

Russo, 2016-Ohio-4711, ¶ 4 (8th Dist.) (“the existence of an adequate remedy at law that

PAGE 3 OF 5

Case No. 2025-P-0035 Rendell has pursued”, i.e., a motion to dismiss pursuant to R.C. 2941.401 filed in the trial

court, “precludes the issuance of a writ of mandamus”); State ex rel. Jones v. Vercillo,

2015-Ohio-3991, ¶ 6 (5th Dist.) (a writ of mandamus does not lie for an alleged violation

of R.C. 2941.401 since an adequate remedy at law existed).

{¶10} Walker argues that the jurisdictional defect is not a “waivable” speedy trial

issue. Before this court is not whether this issue was waived or not but, rather, whether

it can be raised through an extraordinary writ. Pursuant to the authority in Bowling, supra,

it cannot. This court has rejected a similar argument that failure to timely bring a

defendant to trial under R.C. 2941.401 warranted relief in mandamus because it raised a

jurisdictional issue, finding that it could be properly addressed through a direct appeal.

State ex rel. Barr v. Pittman, 2010-Ohio-2293, ¶ 3, 9-12 (11th Dist.).

{¶11} Upon construing Walker’s allegations in a manner most favorable to him,

he fails to state a claim upon which relief in mandamus can be granted.

{¶12} For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pittman’s motion to dismiss is granted

and Walker’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed.

JOHN J. EKLUND, J., EUGENE A. LUCCI, J., SCOTT LYNCH, J., concur.

PAGE 4 OF 5

Case No. 2025-P-0035 JUDGMENT ENTRY

For the reasons stated in the Per Curiam Opinion of this court, respondent’s motion

to dismiss is granted and relator’s verified petition for peremptory and alternative writ of

mandamus is dismissed. Costs to be taxed against relator.

JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND, concurs

JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI, concurs

JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH, concurs

THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY

A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PAGE 5 OF 5

Case No. 2025-P-0035