State ex rel. Michael Edwards v. Judge Thomas P. Curran Court of Common Pleas Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Case, 97-LW-2702

• Decision Date: 05 June 1997
• Docket Number: 97-LW-2702,71226
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO EX REL. MICHAEL EDWARDS, Relator v. JUDGE THOMAS P. CURRAN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO, Respondent CASE
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

STATE OF OHIO EX REL. MICHAEL EDWARDS Relator v. JUDGE THOMAS P. CURRAN COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO, Respondent

No. 71226.

97-LW-2702 (8th)

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District Cuyahoga

June 5, 1997

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

For Relator: MICHAEL EDWARDS, Pro Se, No. 320-963 Madison Corr. Inst., P.O. Box 740, London, Ohio 43140.

For Respondent: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, RHONDA M. O'NEAL, Assistant County Prosecutor, Justice Center, Courts Tower, 1200 Ontario Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44113.

MOTION NO. 83663

OPINION

JAMES D. SWEENEY, C.J.

The relator, Michael Edwards, commenced this mandamus action against the respondent, Judge Thomas P. Curran, to compel the judge "to produce documents requested in attached motion", i.e., the original notes of the arresting officers, together with police reports containing statements of witnesses and any and all statements made by Mr. Edwards or witnesses to officers concerning the crime. Judge Curran, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, moved to dismiss, because the state had already provided Mr Edwards with all the records to which he is entitled. Attached to this motion was a copy of the docket; thus, this court considers the motion to dismiss a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civil Rule 12(B). Despite having many months in which to respond, Mr. Edwards never filed anything. For the following reasons, this court grants Judge Curran's motion for summary judgment and dismisses the mandamus action.

In the underlying case Mr. Edwards was found guilty of rape kidnapping and aggravated robbery and sentenced to ten to twenty-five years on each count, to be served consecutively. He appealed, and the public defender's office was appointed to represent him. Mr. Edwards then, after conviction and sentencing, moved the respondent for the above-listed records so he could file a post-conviction petition. Judge Curran denied the motion.

First, this case is properly dismissed for lack of prosecution. Mr. Edwards never responded, never filed anything after Judge Curran moved for summary judgment. In State ex rel. White v. Enright (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 481, 605 N.E.2d 44, the relator sought various discovery matters, including police reports and witness statements from the prosecutor. After the prosecutor submitted the relevant materials under seal, the relator never filed a brief in support of his position. The court of appeals then dismissed the mandamus action for lack of prosecution, and the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed. Furthermore, the courts have often dismissed mandamus actions for lack of prosecution when the relator has failed to file briefs. State ex rel. Mancini v. Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 486, 633 N.E.2d 1126; State ex rel. Crow v. Baynes (1962), 173 Ohio St. 311, 181 N.E.2d 804; State ex rel. Eglin v. Watzek (1961), 172 Ohio St. 199, 174 N.E.2d 261.

On the merits of the case, this court rules that Judge Curran's position, that Mr. Edwards has been provided with all that he is entitled to, is well taken. Mr. Edwards is not entitled to witness statements or to police notes and reports. Crim. R. 16(B). Even under R.C. 149.43, the Ohio Public Records Act, and State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 639 N.E.2d 83, there is generally no duty to provide such records. The docket establishes that before trial in November 1995, Mr. Edwards moved for discovery and that in December 1995, the state submitted its response. This response stated that Mr. Edwards made no written statement to the police, but he did make an oral one. The response provided the following summary of that statement: "The defendant stated he could not remember what he did or who he was with in September 2, 1995. He stated he does not know who would make a complaint like this against him. He stated that if he remembers correctly he was working at Jacob's Field for the Cleveland Indians baseball games."

Moreover, to the extent that Mr. Edwards is demanding that Judge Curran provide the records, the request is misdirected because the judge would not have custody of the records. The police or the prosecutor would have custody of these requested records, and...