Case Title: State ex rel. Russo v. Deters

Citation: 1997-Ohio-351

Docket Number: 19970763

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-10-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[THE STATE EX REL.] RUSSO, APPELLANT, v. DETERS, PROS. ATTY., APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Russo v. Deters (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 152.] 
Civil procedure — Motion for relief from judgment — Court of appeals does not 
abuse its discretion in overruling a Civ.R. 60(B) motion when movant fails 
to establish a meritorious claim. 
(No. 97-763 — Submitted August 26, 1997 — Decided October 22, 1997.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-961098. 
 
Appellant, Robert Russo, was charged with robbing a service station.  State 
v. Russo (Nov. 15, 1995), Hamilton App. No. C-941052, unreported, 1995 WL 
675975.  During his trial, the state introduced into evidence photographs taken 
from the service station’s surveillance cameras.  In February 1996, Russo filed a 
motion for production and inspection of the entire surveillance videotape pursuant 
to the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, but the Hamilton County Court of 
Common Pleas denied his motion in March 1996. 
 
In August 1996, Russo filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel 
appellee, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney Joseph T. Deters, to provide 
access to the videotape under R.C. 149.43 and Crim.R. 16(B).  Although the 
complaint was titled as an action in the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, the 
clerk of courts filed Russo’s complaint in the common pleas court.  In December 
1996, Russo filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on his mandamus 
action.  The clerk filed this motion in the court of appeals.  The court of appeals 
subsequently granted Deters’s motion and dismissed the mandamus complaint 
because “there is no Writ of Mandamus filed as indicated in the relator’s motion 
[for judgment on the pleadings] * * *.”  Russo then filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for 
relief from judgment, stating that the clerk had mistakenly failed to file his 
 
2
mandamus complaint in the court of appeals. The court of appeals overruled 
Russo’s motion for relief from judgment. 
 
The cause is before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
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. 
 
3
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) motion for relief from judgment.  Although 
Russo filed his motion in a timely manner and might have established 
inadvertence or mistake by the clerk in filing his mandamus complaint, he did not 
establish that he had a meritorious claim.  State ex rel. Richard v. Seidner (1996), 
76 Ohio St.3d 149, 151, 666 N.E.2d 1134, 1136 (Civ.R. 60[B] relief is 
inappropriate if any one of the three requirements is not satisfied.).  Accordingly, 
we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.