Case Title: State ex rel. Blandin v. Beck

Citation: 2007-Ohio-4562

Docket Number: 20070330

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Blandin v. Beck, 114 Ohio St.3d 455, 2007-Ohio-4562.] 
 
 
 
[THE STATE EX REL.] BLANDIN v. BECK, SHERIFF. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Blandin v. Beck, 114 Ohio St.3d 455, 2007-Ohio-4562.] 
Writ of mandamus sought to compel sheriff to return money seized from 
defendant upon his arrest — Writ denied. 
(No. 2007-0330 ─ Submitted August 14, 2007 ─ Decided September 19, 2007.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an original action for a writ of mandamus to compel a 
county sheriff to return money that was seized from relator, Alrenzo Blandin, 
upon his arrest and that was applied toward fines imposed for his felony drug 
convictions pursuant to a subsequent trial court order.  Because Blandin has not 
established his entitlement to the writ, we deny it. 
Arrest and Seizure of Money 
{¶ 2} The West Central Ohio Crime Task Force is a multijurisdictional 
narcotics- investigation unit that is headquartered at the Allen County Sheriff’s 
Office.  The task force placed Blandin under surveillance as a primary suspect in 
a narcotics investigation. 
{¶ 3} On August 3, 2005, Allen County Deputy Sheriff Brock Douglass 
stopped a vehicle driven by Blandin in Lima, Ohio.  Officers from the task force 
also responded.  During the traffic stop, officers found over 25 grams of crack 
cocaine in Blandin’s possession.  The officers arrested Blandin and transported 
him to the county jail.  At the time of his arrest, Blandin had $1,058.80 on his 
person.  In accordance with jail policy, the officers took the cash from Blandin in 
order to place it in a jail commissary account for Blandin’s use. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} Immediately following Blandin’s arrest, task force officers 
executed a search warrant at Blandin’s Lima residence.  The officers seized 
approximately 100 grams of crack cocaine and over 100 grams of powder cocaine 
from Blandin’s home, as well as $2,500 from a vehicle parked on Blandin’s 
premises.  The officers put the cash in a labeled envelope to be used as evidence 
at Blandin’s trial. 
{¶ 5} At about the same time, an officer at the jail took the $1,058.80 
removed from Blandin’s person at the time of his arrest and turned it over to task-
force investigators upon receiving information that the money might be used as 
evidence in the drug case against Blandin.  An Allen County grand jury 
subsequently indicted Blandin on multiple drug offenses. 
Request for Return of Property and Court Order 
{¶ 6} In May 2006, Blandin, through his appointed counsel, filed a 
request in the Allen County Court of Common Pleas for an order that the cash 
taken from him at his arrest and the car he was driving at the time of his arrest be 
returned to him because they had no evidentiary value in the criminal case.  By 
entry filed July 5, 2006, Judge Jeffrey R. Reed of the common pleas court ordered 
that law-enforcement officials return any property to Blandin “that is not intended 
to be used as evidence, does not contain potential evidence or that is not 
contraband.”    But Judge Reed also specified in the entry that “[i]nasmuch as 
[Blandin’s] Mercedes Benz or the cash seized from [Blandin] may be used as 
evidence and may be relevant it is ORDERED not to be returned.” 
Imposition of Fines following Trial and Court Order 
that Seized Money be Applied to Fines 
{¶ 7} Following trial, the jury returned a verdict finding Blandin guilty 
of two counts of possession of crack cocaine and two counts of possession of 
powder cocaine.  On December 14, 2006, Judge Reed sentenced Blandin to an 
January Term, 2007 
3 
aggregate prison term of 20 1/2 years.  Judge Reed also fined him a total of 
$35,000. 
{¶ 8} On February 26, 2007, Judge Reed ordered that the money seized 
from Blandin when he was arrested be applied first to the mandatory fines 
imposed upon Blandin in the sentencing entry and then to court costs.  Under this 
order, the county sheriff’s office collected from the task force $3,558.80 ─ the 
$1,058.80 seized from Blandin’s person upon arrest and the $2,500 seized from a 
car on his premises when the search warrant was executed ─ and deposited it into 
the sheriff’s office checking account and delivered a check in that amount from 
that account to the Clerk of Courts of the common pleas court to be applied to 
Blandin’s fines in his criminal case. 
Mandamus Case 
{¶ 9} Following the sentencing entry but before the court’s order that the 
money seized from Blandin be applied to his fines, Blandin filed this action for a 
writ of mandamus to compel respondent, Allen County Sheriff Daniel W. Beck, 
to release to him the $1,058.80 seized during the arrest.  Blandin alleged that he 
had a right to the return of this money based upon the inmate rules of conduct for 
the county jail. 
{¶ 10} Sheriff Beck filed a motion to dismiss Blandin’s mandamus 
complaint.  In his response to the motion, Blandin asserted that he was entitled to 
the requested writ because of the common pleas court’s July 5, 2006 order, which 
he claimed granted his request for the return of property.  Blandin attached copies 
of his request and the order to his response. 
{¶ 11} On May 2, the court granted an alternative writ and ordered the 
submission of evidence and briefs.  113 Ohio St.3d 1486, 2007-Ohio-1986, 865 
N.E.2d 911.  Sheriff Beck submitted evidence, and the parties submitted briefs.    
{¶ 12} This cause is now before the court for its consideration of the 
merits of Blandin’s mandamus claim. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Mandamus 
{¶ 13} To be entitled to the requested writ of mandamus, Blandin must 
establish a clear legal right to the return of the cash seized from him when he was 
arrested, a clear legal duty on the part of Sheriff Beck to return the money, and the 
lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Martin 
v. Mannen, 113 Ohio St.3d 373, 2007-Ohio-2078, 865 N.E.2d 898, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 14} For the reasons that follow, Blandin is not entitled to the requested 
extraordinary relief in mandamus. 
{¶ 15} First, the county jail’s inmate rules of conduct do not impose any 
duty on Sheriff Beck that is cognizable in mandamus.  “In mandamus 
proceedings, the creation of the legal duty that a relator seeks to enforce is the 
distinct function of the legislative branch of government, and courts are not 
authorized to create the legal duty enforceable in mandamus.”  State ex rel. 
Lecklider v. School Emp. Retirement Sys., 104 Ohio St.3d 271, 2004-Ohio-6586, 
819 N.E.2d 289, ¶ 23.  Blandin cites no constitutional provision, statute, or 
administrative rule that imposes a duty on the sheriff to return the seized property. 
{¶ 16} Second, the common pleas court’s July 5, 2006 order that Blandin 
relies upon to claim a right to the return of the seized cash did not compel Sheriff 
Beck to return the money.  Instead, in that entry, the court specifically ordered 
that the cash seized from Blandin not be returned because it “may be used as 
evidence and may be relevant” to his then-pending criminal trial. 
{¶ 17} Third, insofar as Blandin claimed that Sheriff Beck failed to follow 
the common pleas court’s July 5, 2006 entry by not returning the seized cash, “the 
use of extraordinary relief to enforce a judgment is not widespread, because of the 
availability of other means of enforcement, e.g., motion for contempt.”  Dzina v. 
Celebrezze, 108 Ohio St.3d 385, 2006-Ohio-1195, 843 N.E.2d 1202, ¶ 14. 
{¶ 18} Fourth, Blandin had an adequate remedy by appeal to challenge 
either of the trial court’s orders, i.e., the July 5, 2006 entry ordering that the cash 
January Term, 2007 
5 
seized from Blandin not be returned to him and the February 26, 2007 entry 
ordering that the cash be applied to the mandatory fines imposed on him.  
“Mandamus will not issue if there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary 
course of law.”  State ex rel. Mackey v. Blackwell, 106 Ohio St.3d 261, 2005-
Ohio-4789, 834 N.E.2d 346, ¶ 21; R.C. 2731.05; see, also, State ex rel. Harris v. 
Toledo (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 36, 38, 656 N.E.2d 334 (affirming dismissal of 
mandamus action because relator had adequate remedy of replevin to recover 
possession of truck from city); State ex rel. Luke v. Corrigan (1980), 61 Ohio 
St.2d 86, 15 O.O.3d 123, 399 N.E.2d 1208 (affirming dismissal of mandamus 
complaint on the basis that relators had an adequate remedy at law by way of an 
action in replevin to recover personal property seized under a search warrant). 
{¶ 19} Finally, the common pleas court subsequently ordered that the 
money seized from Blandin be applied to the mandatory fines imposed upon him 
in the sentencing entry.  Sheriff Beck complied with that order, and he no longer 
has possession of the seized money.  Although the common pleas court’s 
February 26, 2007 order was issued after Blandin filed this action, we properly 
consider it in determining his entitlement to the requested writ.  State ex rel. 
Wilson v. Sunderland (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 548, 549, 721 N.E.2d 1055 (in 
mandamus actions, courts are not limited to the facts at the time the action is 
commenced and should consider the pertinent facts at the time it decides the 
claim). 
{¶ 20} Based on the foregoing, Blandin has established none of the 
requirements for the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus.  Accordingly, 
we deny the writ. 
Writ denied. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Alrenzo Blandin, pro se. 
 
Juergen Waldick, Allen County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jana E. Emrick, 
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent. 
______________________