State v. Patterson

2023 Ohio 4596

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Patterson, 2023-Ohio-4596.]

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

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2023-T-0059

Respondent, Original Action for Writ of Mandamus - vs -

LUKE D. PATTERSON,

Relator.

PER CURIAM OPINION

Decided: December 18, 2023 Judgment: Petition dismissed

Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ryan J. Sanders, Assistant Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH 44481 (For Respondent).

Luke D. Patterson, pro se, Reg. No. 60459-060, FCI Gilmer Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 6000, Glenville, WV 26351 (Relator).

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Before this court is relator, Luke D. Patterson’s, Petition for Mandamus. The

State of Ohio has filed a Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), claiming that

Patterson can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief. For the following reasons,

Patterson’s Petition for Mandamus is dismissed.

{¶2} On August 17, 2023, Patterson filed his Petition for Mandamus. Patterson

alleges that after pleading guilty to offenses of Aggravated Robbery and firearm

specifications in an amended indictment in Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2001 CR 00001 and serving a prison term, he was subsequently charged

federally for being a felon in possession of a firearm and “was sentenced to 15 years

mandatory minimum due to the 3 counts listed on his ORIGINAL indictment” in Case No

2001 CR 00001. He contends that his federal charges were impacted by the failure to

document that there was an amended indictment in Case No. 2001 CR 00001.

{¶3} Patterson filed a “Writ of Error Coram Nobis” on June 9, 2022, in the

Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, requesting the court to “remove from the record

or seal the document case number [2001 CR 00001], due to the civil disability that said

case has caused.” Patterson argues that “it is the duty of the State of Ohio, after learning

of this disability to grant relief, to resolve this matter due to the fact of the lower court’s

error in properly filing documentation.” He requests that this court “grant this petition and

ORDER that the Common Pleas Court for Trumbull County expedite its decision” and

grant his “Writ of Error Coram Nobis.”

{¶4} The State of Ohio filed a Motion to Dismiss, in which it argues that the lower

court ruled on Patterson’s motion and, thus, no relief is warranted.

{¶5} “Mandamus is a writ, issued in the name of the state to an inferior tribunal,

a corporation, board, or person, commanding the performance of an act which the law

specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.” R.C. 2731.01. “To

be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the relator must be able to prove that: (1) he has a

clear legal right to have a specific act performed by a public official; (2) the public official

has a clear legal duty to perform that act; and (3) there is no legal remedy that could be

pursued to adequately resolve the matter.” State ex rel. Vance v. Kontos, 11th Dist.

Trumbull No. 2014-T-0078, 2014-Ohio-5080, ¶ 9.

Case No. 2023-T-0059 {¶6} As an initial matter, we observe that the State of Ohio has been identified

as the respondent in this action. Although arguing that the State should “resolve this

matter,” it appears Patterson is actually seeking a writ ordering action by the Trumbull

County Court of Common Pleas, which is the entity with the authority to seal or remove

documents from its record and to rule on the “Writ of Error Coram Nobis.”

{¶7} To the extent that Patterson seeks an order for the lower court to “expedite

its decision,” we observe that the trial court issued an August 18, 2023 Judgment Entry

denying his “Writ of Error Coram Nobis.” “[I]f the trial judge has already performed the

particular act which the relator seeks to compel, the merits of the mandamus claim will be

considered moot and the entire action will be subject to dismissal.” State ex rel. Verbanik

v. Girard Mun. Court Judge Bernard, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2006-T-0080, 2007-Ohio-

1786, ¶ 7; State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman, 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163 (1983) (a writ

of mandamus “will not issue to compel a public official to perform a legal duty which has

been completed”) (citations omitted).

{¶8} Patterson also requested as relief that this court order the lower court to

grant his “Writ of Error” and contends in his response to the motion to dismiss that the

Writ was improperly denied. However, this court “cannot grant a writ of mandamus

ordering the lower court to either rule in a certain manner or to grant relator’s motions.”

Clough v. Lawson, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2012-L-118, 2012-Ohio-5831, ¶ 9. A writ of

mandamus “cannot be used as a means of mandating a trial judge’s holding on a

particular matter; that is, while the writ will lie to require a judge to dispose of a pending

motion, it will not lie to require a specific ruling.” Verbanik at ¶ 6 (“although the writ can

be employed to force a judge to go forward and exercise his discretion, it cannot be

Case No. 2023-T-0059 used to actually control the judge’s discretion”).

{¶9} We observe that, on the final page of his September 11, 2023 Response to

the Motion to Dismiss, Patterson included a “Notice of Appeal,” stating that he appeals

from the trial court’s August 18, 2023 entry. This “Notice” was not separately time

stamped or docketed. In order to properly appeal from a trial court judgment, a party

must comply with App.R. 3 and Loc.App.R. 3. App.R. 3(A) requires that an appeal be

instituted by “filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the trial court.” Patterson did not

file the “Notice” with the trial court but instead in the court of appeals attached to his

response. “A notice of appeal that is only filed in [the] appellate court does not invoke our

jurisdiction.” State v. Armstrong, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29084, 2021-Ohio-3530, ¶ 3.

Further, Loc.App.R. 3(B)(1) requires an appellant to pay a cost deposit or file an affidavit

of inability to secure costs by prepayment. There is no indication that Patterson paid a

deposit or filed an affidavit for waiver of prepayment as required to initiate an appeal.

Patterson’s “Notice of Appeal” was not properly filed and is not recognized as instituting

an appeal before this court.

{¶10} For the foregoing reasons, the respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted

and the Petition for Mandamus is dismissed.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J., MATT LYNCH, J., EUGENE A. LUCCI, J., concur.

Case No. 2023-T-0059