Case Title: State ex rel. Love v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor's Office

Citation: 1999-Ohio-314

Docket Number: 19990969

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-11-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Love v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 87 Ohio St.3d 158, 1999-Ohio-314.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. LOVE, APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S 
OFFICE ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Love v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s Office (1999), 87 Ohio 
St.3d 158.] 
Mandamus sought to compel Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office to provide 
relator certain records relating to his concluded criminal trial — Denial of 
writ affirmed, when. 
(No. 99-969 — Submitted September 21, 1999 — Decided November 10, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 75740. 
 
In 1981, appellant, Edsel Love, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter 
and aggravated robbery and was sentenced to prison. 
 
In 1998, Love filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga 
County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, the Cuyahoga County 
Prosecutor’s Office and the Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, to provide 
certain records, including any ballistics and autopsy reports, relating to his criminal 
trial.  Appellees had denied his repeated requests for these records.  Love claimed 
that he was entitled to these records because they constituted exculpatory evidence 
that he needed to support his petition for postconviction relief.  Love asserted that 
he was not requesting these records under R.C. 149.43, Ohio’s Public Records Act, 
but was instead simply relying on the general mandamus statute, R.C. 2731.01.  
Appellees filed an answer and a motion for summary judgment. The court of 
appeals granted appellees’ motion and denied the writ. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Edsel Love, pro se. 
 
2
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Diane 
Smilanick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Love asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ.  
For the following reasons, Love’s contentions lack merit. 
 
As the court of appeals concluded, Love cited no authority entitling him to 
the requested records.  A writ of mandamus will not be issued to compel the 
general observance of unspecified laws.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Kuczak v. Saffold 
(1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 123, 125, 616 N.E.2d 230, 232.  In fact, there is no 
requirement of civil discovery in postconviction proceedings.  See State v. Spirko 
(1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 421, 429, 713 N.E.2d 60, 65, discretionary appeal not 
allowed (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 1430, 699 N.E.2d 946; State v. White (June 16, 
1999), Summit App. No. 394938, unreported, 1999 WL 394938. 
 
In addition, Love is not entitled to the requested records under the Crim.R. 
16 criminal discovery provisions because his criminal trial concluded long before 
his requests.  State ex rel. Flagner v. Arko (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 176, 177, 699 
N.E.2d 62, 63; Crim.R. 16(D). 
 
Finally, Love disclaimed any right to relief under R.C. 149.43.  Flagner, 83 
Ohio St.3d at 177, 699 N.E.2d at 63. 
 
Based on the foregoing, 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.