State ex rel. Manns v. Henson
Citation | 2008 Ohio 4478,894 N.E.2d 47,119 Ohio St.3d 348 |
Decision Date | 10 September 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 2008-0710.,2008-0710. |
Parties | The STATE ex rel. MANNS, Appellant, v. HENSON, Judge, et al., Appellees. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
Tremaine T. Manns, pro se.
James J. Mayer Jr., Richland County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew Kvochick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an inmate's petition for a writ of prohibition. Because the inmate failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Appellant, Tremaine T. Manns, an inmate at Richland Correctional Institution, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Richland County for a writ of prohibition to prevent further prosecution in a criminal case. Manns named appellees, Richland County Common Pleas Court Judge James D. Henson, Richland County Prosecuting Attorney James J. Mayer Jr., and Richland County Clerk of Courts Linda H. Frary, as respondents. Manns's petition did not include an affidavit containing a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action he had filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court, as required by R.C. 2969.25(A). In addition, although Manns filed an affidavit of indigency in which he claimed that he could not pay the fee to file his prohibition action, he did not file the statement required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) setting forth his inmate account "for each of the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier." Appellees filed a motion to dismiss and the court of appeals granted the motion and dismissed the cause.
{¶ 3} This cause is now before the court upon Manns's appeal as of right.
{¶ 4} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. It is well settled that "`[t]he requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate's action to dismissal.'" State ex rel. Ridenour v. Brunsman, 117 Ohio St.3d 260, 2008-Ohio-854, 883 N.E.2d 438, ¶ 5, quoting State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5. Manns's belated attempt to file one of the required affidavits does not excuse his noncompliance. Fortson v. Bradshaw, 109 Ohio St.3d 250, 2006-Ohio-2291, 846 N.E.2d 1258, ¶ 12. Nor does R.C. 2969.25(A) or (C) permit substantial compliance. See, e.g., Martin v. Ghee (Apr. 9, 2002), Franklin App. No. 01AP-1380, 2002 WL 523000, *3 ().
Judgment affirmed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brock v. Ross Corr. Inst.
...¶ 9. The Ohio Supreme Court has made it clear that neither R.C. 2969.25(A) nor (C) permit substantial compliance. State ex rel. Manns v. Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348, 2008-Ohio-4478, 894 N.E.2d 47, ¶ 4, citing Martin v. Ghee, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 01AP-1380, 2002 WL 523000 (Apr. 9, 2002).Ac......
-
State ex rel. Parker Bey v. [Ohio] Bureau of Sentence Computation
...State ex rel. Alford v. Winters, 80 Ohio St.3d 285 (1997). Nothing in R.C. 2969.25 permits substantial compliance. State ex rel. Manns v. Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348, 2008-Ohio-4478, ¶ 4, citing Martin v. Ghee, 10th Dist. No. 01AP-1380, 2002-Ohio-1621. Instead, " '[t]he requirements of R.C. ......
-
State v. Wilson
...... of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel Neal v. Mandros, 162 Ohio St.3d 154,. 2020-Ohio-4866, 164 N.E.3d 418, ¶ 9, citing State ex. ...Henton, 146. Ohio St.3d 9, 2016-Ohio-1518, 50 N.E.3d 553, ¶ 4;. State ex rel. Manns v. Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348,. 2008-Ohio-4478, 894 N.E.2d 47, ¶ 4. . . ......
-
Ohio Attorney Gen. v. Brock
...¶ 9. The Ohio Supreme Court has made it clear that neither R.C. 2969.25(A) nor (C) permit substantial compliance. State ex rel. Manns v. Henson, 119 Ohio St.3d 348, 2008-Ohio-4478, 894 N.E.2d 47, ¶ 4, citing Martin v. Ghee, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 01AP-1380, 2002 WL 523000 (Apr. 9, 2002). {......