State ex rel. Russo v. Deters

Decision Date22 October 1997
Docket NumberNo. 97-763,97-763
Citation80 Ohio St.3d 152,684 N.E.2d 1237
PartiesRUSSO, Appellant, v. DETERS, Pros. Atty., Appellee.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Robert Russo, pro se.

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald W. Springman, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Russo asserts in his sole proposition of law that the court of appeals erred when it overruled his Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment.

In an appeal from a Civ.R. 60(B) determination, a reviewing court must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 20, 520 N.E.2d 564, 566. An abuse of discretion connotes conduct which is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 106, 107, 647 N.E.2d 799, 801. In order to prevail on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment, the movant must establish that "(1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and (3) the motion is made within a reasonable time, and, where the grounds of relief are Civ.R. 60(B)(1), (2) or (3), not more than one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered or taken." GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc. (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 146, 1 O.O.3d 86, 351 N.E.2d 113, paragraph two of the syllabus.

For the reasons that follow, Russo failed to establish that he had a meritorious claim to present. First, records which are discoverable under Crim.R. 16 are not thereby subject to release as "public records" under R.C. 149.43. State ex rel. Fuqua v. Alexander (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 206, 208, 680 N.E.2d 985, 987, citing State ex rel. WHIO-TV-7 v. Lowe (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 350, 673 N.E.2d 1360, syllabus. Second, to the extent Russo claims entitlement to the videotape under Crim.R. 16 or some provision other than R.C. 149.43, he had adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law at trial and on appeal. Finally, res judicata precluded Russo from again raising this issue because he had previously raised the issue in common pleas court. See, generally, Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226, syllabus ("A valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.").

Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion by overruling Russo's Civ.R. 60(B) ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
133 cases
  • Gilson v. Am. Inst. of Alt. Med.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • March 29, 2016
    ...an abuse of discretion standard. Harris v. Anderson, 109 Ohio St.3d 101, 2006-Ohio-1934, 846 N.E.2d 43 ; State ex rel. Russo v. Deters, 80 Ohio St.3d 152, 153, 684 N.E.2d 1237 (1997). {¶ 71} Civ.R. 60(B) provides that a “court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final jud......
  • Sydnor v. Qualls
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • December 8, 2016
    ...court abused its discretion. Harris v. Anderson, 109 Ohio St.3d 101, 846 N.E.2d 43, ¶ 7 (2006), citing State ex rel. Russo v. Deters, 80 Ohio St.3d 152, 153, 684 N.E.2d 1237 (1997) ; Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adams, 36 Ohio St.3d 17, 21, 520 N.E.2d 564 (1988). " ‘[A]buse of discretion’ [means......
  • Worthington v. Adm'r, BWC
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • March 26, 2021
    ...* * * An abuse of discretion connotes conduct which is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." State ex rel. Russo v. Deters , 80 Ohio St.3d 152, 153, 684 N.E.2d 1237 (1997), citing State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. , 72 Ohio St.3d 106, 107, 647 N.E.2d 799 (......
  • The State Ex Rel. Mahajan v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • December 15, 2010
    ...constitutes an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that precludes a writ of mandamus”); State ex rel. Russo v. Deters (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 152, 154, 684 N.E.2d 1237 (“to the extent [appellant] claims entitlement to the videotape under Crim.R. 16 or some provision other than R.C. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT