Wyrick v. State Public Defender, 08ap-448 (10-23-2008)

2008 Ohio 5496
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 23, 2008
DocketNo. 08AP-448.
StatusPublished

This text of 2008 Ohio 5496 (Wyrick v. State Public Defender, 08ap-448 (10-23-2008)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wyrick v. State Public Defender, 08ap-448 (10-23-2008), 2008 Ohio 5496 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).

Opinions

OPINION
{¶ 1} Joseph Wyrick is appealing from the dismissal of the lawsuit in the Ohio Court of Claims in which he originally named "Eric Allen, Columbus Public Defender" as the defendant. Wyrick assigns three errors for our consideration:

[I.] The Trial Court erred, "when it allowed the 911 tape to admissibly [be] destroyed."

[II.] The Prosecutor in this case, Deliberately Destroyed the 911 tape, to cover-up the facts that Mr. Wyrick is innocent of this crime. [III.] Mr. Wyrick was misrepresented by his Attorney Eric Allen, at his Trial Court proceedings by allowing the State of *Page 2 Ohio to destroy the 911 tape, that would prove that Mr. Wyrick was not the man at her home on April 5th, 2004.

{¶ 2} Wyrick's complaint is riddled with defects which make the action of the Ohio Court of Claims in dismissing his lawsuit appropriate. He does not identify any state agency which has represented him and which is somehow responsible for the situation in which he finds himself.

{¶ 3} The common pleas court in which he was tried is not a state agency or entity amenable to suit in the Ohio Court of Claims.

{¶ 4} The first assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 5} The prosecuting attorney who prosecuted Wyrick is also not a state agency or entity amenable to suit in the Ohio Court of Claims.

{¶ 6} The second assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 7} The attorney who represented Wyrick at trial is an attorney in private practice in central Ohio. He is not and has not been an employee of the Ohio Public Defender. There is no basis for suing him in the Ohio Court of Claims since he also is not a state agency or entity.

{¶ 8} The third assignment of error is overruled.

{¶ 9} All three assignments of error having been overruled, the judgment of the Ohio Court of Claims is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

KLATT and T. BRYANT, JJ., concur.
T. BRYANT, J., retired of the Third Appellate District, assigned to active duty under the authority of Section 6(C), Article IV, Ohio Constitution. *Page 3

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

Related

Bleicher v. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine
604 N.E.2d 783 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1992)
Burkey v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
528 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1988)
Troutman v. Ohio Drc, Unpublished Decision (2-1-2005)
2005 Ohio 334 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)
Triplett v. Southern Ohio Correc. Facility, 06ap-1296 (5-24-2007)
2007 Ohio 2526 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2008 Ohio 5496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wyrick-v-state-public-defender-08ap-448-10-23-2008-ohioctapp-2008.