Case Title: State ex rel. Mitchell v. Pittman

Citation: 2023-Ohio-3114

Docket Number: 2023-0051

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2023-09-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Mitchell v. Pittman, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-3114.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2023-OHIO-3114 
THE STATE EX REL. MITCHELL, APPELLANT, v. PITTMAN, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Mitchell v. Pittman, Slip Opinion No.  
2023-Ohio-3114.] 
Mandamus—Appellant had adequate remedy in ordinary course of law to seek 
issuance of a final, appealable order resolving original charges—Appellant 
had adequate remedy in ordinary course of law by way of direct appeal to 
argue that indicted charges were improperly substituted—Court of appeals’ 
judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2023-0051—Submitted June 27, 2023—Decided September 7, 2023.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Portage County, No. 2022-P-0044, 
2022-Ohio-4466. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, James E. Mitchell, filed a complaint for a writ of 
mandamus in the Eleventh District Court of Appeals against appellee, Judge Laurie 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2 
J. Pittman of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas (the “trial court”).  
Mitchell sought an order requiring the trial court to issue a final, appealable order 
regarding two criminal convictions from 1993.  The Eleventh District granted the 
trial court’s motion to dismiss, and Mitchell now appeals.  We affirm the Eleventh 
District’s judgment. 
I.  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} Mitchell’s complaint states that he is currently incarcerated at the 
Marion Correctional Institution.  It further states that in 1993, he was indicted in 
Portage County for rape and aggravated burglary and that he pleaded guilty to the 
lesser offenses of gross sexual imposition and burglary.  Mitchell was sentenced to 
3 to 15 years in prison.  His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.  State v. 
Mitchell, 11th Dist. Portage No. 94-P-0070, 1995 WL 411830 (June 23, 1995). 
{¶ 3} In August 2022, Mitchell filed his complaint for a writ of mandamus 
in the Eleventh District, alleging that because there is no entry that disposes of the 
original charges of rape and aggravated burglary, no final, appealable order has 
been issued.  He sought a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court “to dispose of 
the indicted charges and provide [him] a final appealable order that complies with 
Crim.R. 32(C).” 
{¶ 4} The trial court filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss Mitchell’s 
complaint, which the Eleventh District granted.  Mitchell appeals to this court as of 
right. 
II.  LEGAL ANALYSIS 
{¶ 5} We review de novo a decision granting a motion to dismiss under 
Civ.R. 12(B)(6).  Alford v. Collins-McGregor Operating Co., 152 Ohio St.3d 303, 
2018-Ohio-8, 95 N.E.3d 382, ¶ 10.  We construe all allegations in the complaint as 
true, and to affirm a dismissal, it must appear beyond doubt that the relator can 
prove no set of facts that would entitle the relator to relief.  Id. 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
3 
{¶ 6} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Mitchell must establish by clear 
and convincing evidence that (1) he has a clear legal right to the requested relief, 
(2) the trial court has a clear legal duty to provide it, and (3) he lacks an adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  See State ex rel. Love v. O’Donnell, 150 
Ohio St.3d 378, 2017-Ohio-5659, 81 N.E.3d 1250, ¶ 3. 
{¶ 7} Mitchell argues that the trial court is required to issue a final, 
appealable order resolving his original charges of rape and aggravated burglary.  
Mitchell, however, had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law; he 
could have filed a motion in the trial court for a final, appealable order and then 
appealed any adverse ruling on the motion.  Such a remedy constitutes an adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  See State ex rel. Haynie v. Rudduck, 160 
Ohio St.3d 99, 2020-Ohio-2912, 153 N.E.3d 91, ¶ 13 (“because Haynie could have 
appealed Judge Rudduck’s order denying his motion for a final, appealable order, 
he had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that precludes 
extraordinary relief in mandamus”); State ex rel. Bevins v. Cooper, 150 Ohio St.3d 
22, 2016-Ohio-5578, 78 N.E.3d 828, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 8} In addition, to the extent that Mitchell is arguing that the indicted 
charges of rape and aggravated burglary were improperly substituted with charges 
of gross sexual imposition and burglary, Mitchell could have argued this on direct 
appeal of his convictions.  See State ex rel. Mitchell v. Pittman, 169 Ohio St.3d 357, 
2022-Ohio-2542, 204 N.E.3d 534, ¶ 11, 13.  Such an opportunity constitutes an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  See id. at ¶ 13. 
III.  CONCLUSION 
{¶ 9} Because Mitchell had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of 
the law, he is not entitled to relief in mandamus.  We therefore affirm the Eleventh 
District Court of Appeals’ judgment dismissing Mitchell’s complaint. 
Judgment affirmed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4 
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, 
and DETERS, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
James E. Mitchell, pro se. 
Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecuting Attorney, and Theresa M. 
Scahill, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________