Case Title: State ex rel. Sands v. Coulson

Citation: 2021-Ohio-671

Docket Number: 2020-0836

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2021-03-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Sands v. Coulson, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-671.] 
 
 
 
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. 2021-OHIO-671 
THE STATE EX REL. SANDS, APPELLANT, v. COULSON, PROS. ATTY., APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Sands v. Coulson, Slip Opinion No.  
2021-Ohio-671.] 
Mandamus—Prosecutor has no clear legal duty to perform an action that he has 
no legal authority to undertake—Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing 
complaint affirmed. 
(No. 2020-0836—Submitted January 12, 2021—Decided March 11, 2021.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lake County, No. 2020-L-041, 
2020-Ohio-3246. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Joseph A. Sands, appeals the judgment of the Eleventh 
District Court of Appeals dismissing his complaint for a writ of mandamus against 
appellee, Lake County Prosecuting Attorney Charles E. Coulson.  We affirm. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Background 
{¶ 2} In December 2006, Sands was convicted in the Lake County Common 
Pleas Court of three counts of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder, two counts 
of conspiracy to commit aggravated arson, and one count of engaging in a pattern 
of corrupt activity.  Sands received an aggregate prison sentence of 20 years.  The 
Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct 
appeal.  State v. Sands, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2007-L-003, 2008-Ohio-6981, ¶ 195. 
{¶ 3} On March 23, 2020, Sands filed an original action for a writ of 
mandamus in the Eleventh District, alleging that his convictions were based on the 
perjured testimony of the state’s key witness.  And Sands asserted that Coulson has 
a “constitutional duty” to provide him a fair trial and to correct any perjured 
testimony known to Coulson.  Sands therefore asked the court of appeals to grant a 
writ of mandamus compelling Coulson “to dismiss the judgment of conviction[s]” 
against Sands.  Coulson filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. 
{¶ 4} The court of appeals granted Coulson’s motion to dismiss.  2020-
Ohio-3246, ¶ 7.  The court held that Coulson is not under a clear legal duty to 
dismiss Sands’s convictions.  Id. at ¶ 6.  The court observed, “Sands has cited no 
authority, and this court is not aware of any, for the proposition that a prosecutor 
has the ability to vacate criminal convictions.”  Id. 
{¶ 5} Sands appealed to this court. 
Analysis 
{¶ 6} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a party must establish by clear 
and convincing evidence (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear 
legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio 
St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6.  For a court to dismiss a mandamus 
complaint pursuant to Civ. R.12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief 
can be granted, it must appear beyond doubt from the complaint that the relator can 
January Term, 2021 
 
3
prove no set of facts warranting relief, after all factual allegations in the complaint 
are presumed to be true, and all reasonable inferences are made in the relator’s 
favor.  State ex rel. Natl. Elec. Contrs. Assn. v. Ohio Bur. of Empl. Servs., 83 Ohio 
St.3d 179, 181, 699 N.E.2d 64 (1998).  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. 
{¶ 7} The court of appeals correctly dismissed Sands’s complaint for failure 
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  Sands has provided no authority 
establishing that a prosecutor has the authority to unilaterally vacate a conviction.  
And Coulson is not under a clear legal duty to perform an action that he has no legal 
authority to undertake. 
{¶ 8} Sands’s claim is premised on an allegation of prosecutorial 
misconduct.  A prosecutor has a duty to ensure that a criminal defendant receives a 
fair trial, which includes obligations to refrain from knowingly using perjured 
testimony and to correct testimony known to be false.  See State v. Iacona, 93 Ohio 
St.3d 83, 104, 752 N.E.2d 937 (2001).  Under certain circumstances, a prosecutor’s 
failure to meet these obligations might constitute prosecutorial misconduct.  Id.  But 
our caselaw addresses these obligations in the context of the prosecutor’s duty to 
bring such matters to the attention of the court and to the defense.  See id.  It does 
not say that a prosecutor has the authority to unilaterally vacate a conviction. 
{¶ 9} For this reason, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 
and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Joseph A. Sands, pro se. 
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael L. 
DeLeone, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
SUPREME COURT OF O1110