Case Title: State ex rel. Bevins v. Cooper

Citation: 2014-Ohio-544

Docket Number: 2013-1118

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-02-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Bevins v. Cooper, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-544.] 
 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-544 
THE STATE EX REL. BEVINS, APPELLANT, v. COOPER, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Bevins v. Cooper,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-544.] 
Mandamus—Prohibition—Prisoner not entitled to release or retrial—Trial court 
discharge of hung jury at first trial without stating basis for discharge on 
journal as required by R.C. 2945.16—Prisoner waived objection by not 
raising error before second trial—Writ denied. 
(No. 2013-1118—Submitted December 10, 2013—Decided February 20, 2014.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-130276. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the Hamilton County Court of Appeals’ dismissal of 
appellant Andrew Bevins Jr.’s petition for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition. 
{¶ 2} Bevins was tried in 2003 on charges of aggravated burglary and 
rape.  The trial ended in mistrial due to a hung jury.  In 2005, Judge Ethna M. 
Cooper presided over the retrial, in which Bevins was convicted by a jury on both 
counts. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 3} In Bevins’s direct appeal from the 2005 convictions, the court of 
appeals remanded for resentencing, but affirmed the convictions.  State v. Bevins, 
1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-050754, 2006-Ohio-6974.  Bevins unsuccessfully 
appealed to this court.  State v. Bevins, 117 Ohio St.3d 1437, 2008-Ohio-1279, 
883 N.E.2d 456 (denying motion for leave to file delayed appeal). 
{¶ 4} In this case, Bevins asked the court of appeals to issue a writ 
ordering immediate release or a new trial, alleging that the 2005 retrial was 
“jurisdictionally unauthorized” because in 2003 the trial court had discharged the 
jury without stating the reasons for the discharge on the journal, as required by 
R.C. 2945.36. 
{¶ 5} A criminal defendant, under the Fifth Amendment to the United 
States Constitution, generally has the right not to be put in jeopardy twice for the 
same offense.  State v. Gunnell, 132 Ohio St.3d 442, 2012-Ohio-3236, 973 N.E.2d 
243, ¶ 25, citing Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 
707 (1969).  The Double Jeopardy Clause affords a criminal defendant a “ ‘valued 
right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal.’ ” Oregon v. Kennedy, 
456 U.S. 667, 671–672, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982), quoting Wade v. 
Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689, 69 S.Ct. 834, 93 L.Ed. 974 (1949). 
{¶ 6} However, as the Gunnell court pointed out, the right is not without 
exception.  The prosecutor can justify a mistrial and retrial under the Double 
Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment if he can demonstrate “manifest 
necessity” for the mistrial.  Gunnell at ¶ 25, citing Arizona v. Washington, 434 
U.S. 497, 505, 98 S.Ct. 824, 54 L.Ed.2d 717 (1978). 
{¶ 7} “While other situations have been recognized  * * * as meeting the 
‘manifest necessity’ standard, the hung jury remains the prototypical example.” 
Oregon v. Kennedy at 672, citing Arizona v. Washington at 509; Illinois v. 
Somerville, 410 U.S. 458, 463, 93 S.Ct. 1066, 35 L.Ed.2d 425 (1973).  Reflecting 
this exception, R.C. 2945.36(B) allows a trial court to discharge a jury without 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
prejudice to the prosecution when “there is no probability of such jurors 
agreeing.” 
{¶ 8} According to Bevins, however, the trial court in his case did not 
satisfy the requirement of R.C. 2945.36 that the “reason for such discharge shall 
be entered on the journal.”  However, Bevins failed to raise this objection before 
his second trial.  Under Crim.R. 12(C)(1), defenses and objections based on 
defects in the institution of the prosecution “must be raised before trial.”  A 
failure to raise a defense or objection constitutes a waiver of that defense or 
objection. Crim.R. 12(H).  Thus, Bevins has waived his mistrial argument. 
{¶ 9} Moreover, Bevins had available to him other adequate legal 
remedies by way of appeal, and mandamus and prohibition will not lie where 
there is an adequate remedy at law.  State ex rel. Ervin v. Barker, 136 Ohio St.3d 
160, 2013-Ohio-3171, 991 N.E.2d 1146 ¶ 9-10.  As explained above, he could 
have filed a Crim.R. 12(C)(1) motion before the retrial and appealed any denial of 
that motion. He also could have brought up the retrial issue as part of the direct 
appeal of his 2005 conviction, and he could have brought up the retrial issue as 
part of a postconviction petition under R.C. 2953.21 et seq. 
{¶ 10} As Bevins had adequate remedies at law, he is not entitled to a 
writ, and we affirm. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
Andrew Bevins Jr., pro se. 
 
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. 
Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________________