Case Title: State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas

Citation: 2000-Ohio-285

Docket Number: 19991590

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-03-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 88 Ohio St.3d 176, 2000-
Ohio-285.] 
 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. HUNTER, APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY COURT OF 
COMMON PLEAS, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (2000), 88 
Ohio St.3d 176.] 
Mandamus to compel common pleas court to rule on relator’s motion to correct 
his trial proceedings record — Denial of writ affirmed. 
(No. 99-1590 — Submitted January 11, 2000 — Decided March 8, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 76161. 
 
The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas convicted appellant, Patrick 
Hunter, of two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of having a weapon while 
under a disability, and various specifications, and sentenced him to prison.  On 
January 13, 1997, while his appeal from the convictions and sentence was pending, 
Hunter filed a motion in common pleas court requesting that part of the trial 
proceedings that were allegedly omitted from the record be included in the record 
on appeal.  Hunter claimed that the trial court record should have included the 
jury’s request during deliberations to see medical records and excerpts of trial 
testimony.  There is no evidence or assertion that Hunter filed any similar motion 
in the court of appeals.  On July 17, 1997, the court of appeals vacated Hunter’s 
conviction for having a weapon while under a disability but affirmed the remainder 
 
 
2
of his conviction and sentence.  State v. Hunter (July 17, 1997), Cuyahoga App. 
Nos. 70933 and 70934, unreported, appeal not allowed (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 
1446, 686 N.E.2d 274.  In January 1998, the court of appeals denied Hunter’s 
application for reopening.  State v. Hunter (Jan. 22, 1998), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 
70933 and 70934, unreported, 1998 WL 172995. 
 
In March 1999, Hunter filed a complaint in the court of appeals for a writ of 
mandamus to compel appellee, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, to 
order the record in his criminal trial to be corrected to include the jury request that 
he claimed had been omitted.  Hunter alleged that the common pleas court had 
never ruled on his January 13, 1997 motion to include the jury request in the 
record.  Hunter also filed an affidavit of indigency in which he stated that he had 
“no means of financial support and no assets of any real value and, therefore, 
cannot afford to pay for any legal services, fees or cost[s] in the above-styled 
case.”  Hunter did not file an R.C. 2969.25(A) affidavit describing each civil action 
or appeal of a civil action he had filed in the previous five years in any state or 
federal court and also did not file an R.C. 2969.25(C) certified statement by his 
prison cashier setting forth the balance in his private account for each of the 
preceding six months.  The court of appeals granted the common pleas court’s 
motion for summary judgment and denied the writ.  The court of appeals also 
denied Hunter’s claim of indigency and ordered him to pay costs. 
 
 
3
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Patrick Hunter, pro se. 
 
William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Renee L. 
Snow, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Hunter asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the 
requested extraordinary relief in mandamus.  For the following reasons, Hunter’s 
assertion lacks merit. 
 
Initially, to the extent that Hunter requested a writ of mandamus to compel 
the common pleas court to rule on his motion to correct the record, Hunter now 
concedes that the common pleas court has ruled on his motion.  A writ of 
mandamus will not issue to compel an act that has already been performed.  State 
ex rel. Sharif v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 375, 
376, 708 N.E.2d 718, 719. 
 
Moreover, Hunter had adequate remedies by App.R. 9(E) and appeal to 
correct any material omissions from his record.  State ex rel. Hester v. Crush 
(1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 563, 564, 664 N.E.2d 930, 931; State ex rel. Hill v. Niehaus 
(1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 507, 508-509, 628 N.E.2d 1376, 1377.  Even if, as Hunter 
claims, his trial court did not rule on his motion until after the court of appeals had 
 
 
4
resolved his appeal, he could have raised his claim in a motion in the court of 
appeals before his appeal had been decided.  State ex rel. Jones v. Montgomery 
Cty. Court of Common Pleas (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 642, 643, 665 N.E.2d 673, 
674; App.R. 9(E) (“If anything material to either party is omitted from the record 
by error or accident or is misstated therein, * * * the court of appeals, on proper 
suggestion or of its own initiative, may direct that the omission or misstatement be 
corrected, and if necessary that a supplemental record be certified and 
transmitted.”).  (Emphasis added.) 
 
Finally, Hunter failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(A) and (C) in 
commencing his mandamus action, and like appellants in similar cases, Hunter 
never claimed that these provisions are inapplicable to mandamus actions.  State ex 
rel. White v. Goldsberry (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 153, 154-155, 707 N.E.2d 496, 
497-498; State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 422, 
696 N.E.2d 594, 594-595.  The certified statement of the prison cashier required by 
R.C. 2969.25(C) concerning Hunter’s inmate account would have allowed Hunter 
to support his bare, conclusory assertion that he was indigent. 
 
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.