Case Title: State ex rel. Davenport v. State

Citation: 2016-Ohio-3414

Docket Number: 2015-1268

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2016-06-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Davenport v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3414.] 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-3414 
THE STATE EX REL. DAVENPORT, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF OHIO, 
APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Davenport v. State, Slip Opinion No.  
2016-Ohio-3414.] 
Mandamus—R.C. 2969.25(C)—Failure to document balance of inmate account for 
six months preceding filing of complaint—Court of appeals’ dismissal of 
complaint affirmed. 
(No. 2015-1268—Submitted March 8, 2016—Decided June 16, 2016.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 14AP-1041. 
_____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator-appellant, Carlos Davenport, is an inmate who filed a petition 
for a writ of mandamus in the Tenth District Court of Appeals requesting that court 
to order the trial court in his underlying criminal case to rule on motions that were 
allegedly pending.  He filed an affidavit of indigency in the court of appeals that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
requested a waiver of fees and costs.  However, he failed to provide a statement of 
the amount in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as required 
by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1). 
{¶ 2} The court of appeals’ magistrate recommended that the court grant the 
state’s motion to dismiss the case for Davenport’s failure to satisfy the requirements 
of R.C. 2969.25.  No objections were filed, and the court of appeals accepted and 
adopted the magistrate’s decision and recommendation as to that issue and 
dismissed the case.  Davenport appealed. 
{¶ 3} The court of appeals was correct to dismiss the case on the basis 
recommended by the magistrate.  “ ‘The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are 
mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to 
dismissal.’ ”  Boles v. Knab, 129 Ohio St.3d 222, 2011-Ohio-2859, 951 N.E.2d 389, 
¶ 1, quoting State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 
N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5; State ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511, 2010-
Ohio-4726, 935 N.E.2d 830, ¶ 1.  We therefore affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
{¶ 4} Finally, we deny Davenport’s motion for oral argument.  Oral 
argument in a direct appeal is discretionary.  S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.02(A).  None of the 
factors we normally consider in granting a motion for oral argument exists in this 
case.  See State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh, 142 Ohio St.3d 384, 2014-Ohio-4563, 31 
N.E.3d 608, ¶ 16, citing Appenzeller v. Miller, 136 Ohio St.3d 378, 2013-Ohio-
3719, 996 N.E.2d 919, ¶ 4, and cases cited therein. 
Judgment affirmed 
and motion denied. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
 
Carlos Davenport, pro se. 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jeffrey C. Rogers, 
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________