Case Title: State ex rel. Briscoe v. Matia

Citation: 2011-Ohio-760

Docket Number: 20101792

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-02-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Briscoe v. Matia, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-760.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-760 
THE STATE EX REL. BRISCOE, APPELLANT, v. MATIA, JUDGE, ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Briscoe v. Matia,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-760.] 
Mandamus — New trial sought — Appellant had an adequate remedy at law — 
Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2010-1792 — Submitted February 16, 2011 — Decided February 23, 2011.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, 
No. 95414, 2010-Ohio-4144. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying and 
dismissing the claim of appellant, Harry Briscoe, for a writ of mandamus to 
compel appellees, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge David T. 
Matia and Mansfield Correctional Institution Warden Keith Smith, to convey 
Briscoe back to the common pleas court for further proceedings in his criminal 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
case.  Briscoe asked to be readjudicated consistent with the court of appeals’ 
judgment in his previous appeal, State v. Briscoe, Cuyahoga App. No. 89979, 
2008-Ohio-6276.1  We affirmed at 124 Ohio St.3d 117, 2009-Ohio-6540, 919 
N.E.2d 735. 
{¶ 2} Briscoe was convicted of murder and two counts of aggravated 
robbery and various specifications and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term 
of 28 years to life.  Briscoe, 2008-Ohio-6276, at ¶ 3-5.  On appeal, the court of 
appeals affirmed Briscoe’s convictions and sentence for murder, one of the 
aggravated-robbery counts, and the related specifications to these charges, 
reversed Briscoe’s convictions and sentence for the remaining aggravated-robbery 
count and related specifications, and remanded the cause for further proceedings 
consistent with its opinion.  Id.  at ¶ 20-21, 29, 35.  On further appeal, we 
affirmed.  State v. Briscoe, 124 Ohio St.3d 117, 2009-Ohio-6540, 919 N.E.2d 
735. 
{¶ 3} On remand, Judge Matia vacated the aggravated-robbery charge 
and related specifications that had been reversed by the court of appeals in 
Briscoe, 2008-Ohio-6276.  Briscoe’s aggregate prison sentence remained the 
same – 28 years to life.  Briscoe appeared in court for the resentencing in May 
2010 and for the court’s correction of a clerical error in sentencing in August 
2010. 
{¶ 4} When Briscoe was not transferred to the Cuyahoga County Sheriff 
for a new trial, he filed a petition in the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus to 
compel appellees to transfer him pursuant to R.C. 2953.13, which directs: 
{¶ 5} “If a new trial is ordered or the case is remanded, the warden shall 
forthwith cause the defendant to be conveyed to the jail of the county in which the 
                                                 
1  The court of appeals subsequently recognized that based on our decision in State v. Horner, 126 
Ohio St.3d 466, 2010-Ohio-3830, 935 N.E.2d 26, the pertinent portion of its holding in Briscoe 
was no longer viable.  See State v. Segines, Cuyahoga App. No. 89915, 2010-Ohio-5112, ¶ 7. 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
defendant was convicted, and committed to the custody of the sheriff of that 
county.” 
{¶ 6} The court of appeals denied and dismissed Briscoe’s writ claim.  
State ex rel. Briscoe v. Matia, Cuyahoga App. No. 95414, 2010-Ohio-4144. 
{¶ 7} In this appeal, instead of claiming entitlement to the writ of 
mandamus requesting that he be conveyed to the common pleas court under R.C. 
2953.13, Briscoe seeks the writ to “compel the trial court to provide [him] with a 
new trial” or “dismiss the case * * * entirely” because of structural error.  Briscoe 
waived these claims because he failed to plead them in his petition.  See State ex 
rel. Scruggs v. Sadler, 102 Ohio St.3d 160, 2004-Ohio-2054, 807 N.E.2d 357, ¶ 6. 
{¶ 8} Moreover, nothing in the court of appeals’ opinion in Briscoe, 
2008-Ohio-6276, required either a new trial or a dismissal of all the crimes for 
which Briscoe was convicted and sentenced.  In fact, the court of appeals affirmed 
Briscoe’s convictions and sentence for murder and for one of the aggravated-
robbery counts with related specifications, and we affirmed that judgment.  
Briscoe, 124 Ohio St.3d 117, 2009-Ohio-6540, 919 N.E.2d 735. 
{¶ 9} Briscoe also had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law 
by way of appeal from Judge Matia’s judgment on remand to raise these claims.  
See State ex rel. Voleck v. Powhatan Point, 127 Ohio St.3d 299, 2010-Ohio-5679, 
939 N.E.2d 819, ¶ 7 (“Mandamus will not issue when the relators have an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law”); R.C. 2731.05. 
{¶ 10} Finally, insofar as Briscoe’s claim for the dismissal of his entire 
criminal case essentially seeks release from prison, habeas corpus, and not 
mandamus, is the appropriate action.  State ex rel. Gordon v. Murphy, 112 Ohio 
St.3d 329, 2006-Ohio-6572, 859 N.E.2d 928, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 11} Therefore, Briscoe’s appeal lacks merit, and we affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals.  Our disposition of this appeal renders Judge 
Matia’s motion to strike Briscoe’s merit brief moot. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Harry Briscoe, pro se. 
_____________________