Case Title: State ex rel. Boylen v. Harmon

Citation: 2006-Ohio-7

Docket Number: 20051251

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-01-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Boylen v. Harmon, 107 Ohio St.3d 370, 2006-Ohio-7.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. BOYLEN, APPELLANT, v.  
HARMON, CLERK, ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Boylen v. Harmon, 107 Ohio St.3d 370, 2006-Ohio-7.] 
R.C. 2935.10 governs procedure for affidavits filed under R.C. 2935.09 — No 
conflict between R.C. 2935.10 and Crim.R. 4(A) in this case. 
(No. 2005-1251 — Submitted November 9, 2005 — Decided January 11, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. 2005CA00104. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment granting a writ of mandamus to 
compel the Clerk of the Canton Municipal Court to file an inmate’s affidavits that 
were presented pursuant to R.C. 2935.09 and to conduct subsequent proceedings 
on the affidavits in accordance with R.C. 2935.10. 
{¶ 2} In August 1999, appellant, prison inmate Adam Douglas Boylen, 
was convicted of 17 counts of aggravated robbery and one count of grand theft of 
a motor vehicle and sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 50 years and five 
months. 
{¶ 3} In March 2005, Boylen drafted and attempted to file seven 
affidavits with appellees, the clerk and assistant clerk of the Canton Municipal 
Court (collectively, “clerk”).  In the affidavits, Boylen charged various persons, 
including law enforcement officers, with various crimes.  The clerk refused to file 
the affidavits. 
{¶ 4} In April 2005, Boylen filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for 
Stark County.  Boylen requested a writ of mandamus to compel the clerk to file 
the affidavits pursuant to R.C. 2935.09.  The court of appeals granted a writ of 
mandamus to compel the clerk to accept for filing Boylen’s affidavits under R.C. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
2935.09, but further held that subsequent proceedings would be in accordance 
with R.C. 2935.10, which did not require prosecution of the crimes charged in the 
affidavits. 
{¶ 5} In his appeal as of right, Boylen asserts that the court erred in 
holding that R.C. 2935.10 governs the subsequent procedure relating to his 
affidavits. 
{¶ 6} Boylen’s claim lacks merit.  As we have consistently held, “R.C. 
2935.09 does not mandate prosecution of all offenses charged by affidavit.”  State 
ex rel. Evans v. Columbus Dept. of Law (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 174, 175, 699 
N.E.2d 60.  “While R.C. 2935.09 provides that a ‘private citizen having 
knowledge of the facts’ shall file with a judge, clerk of court, or magistrate an 
affidavit charging an offense committed in order to cause the arrest or prosecution 
of the person charged, it must be read in pari materia with R.C. 2935.10, which 
prescribes the subsequent procedure to be followed.”  State ex rel. Strothers v. 
Turner (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 272, 273, 680 N.E.2d 1238, citing State v. Holbert 
(1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 113, 117, 67 O.O.2d 111, 311 N.E.2d 22. 
{¶ 7} Under R.C. 2935.10(A), if the affidavit filed under R.C. 2935.09 
charges a felony, the judge, clerk, or magistrate with whom the affidavit is filed 
must issue a warrant for the arrest of the person charged in the affidavit unless the 
judge, clerk, or magistrate “has reason to believe that it was not filed in good 
faith, or the claim is not meritorious.”  “[O]therwise, he shall forthwith refer the 
matter to the prosecuting attorney or other attorney charged by law with 
prosecution for investigation prior to the issuance of warrant.”  R.C. 2935.10(A).  
Boylen’s affidavits charge various felonies, so R.C. 2935.10(A) requires the clerk 
to follow the specified procedure. 
{¶ 8} Boylen claims, however, that Crim.R. 4(A) governs the procedure 
after filing of affidavits under R.C. 2935.09 because Crim.R. 4(A) supersedes 
R.C. 2935.10.  It is true that “[w]here a conflict arises between a rule and a 
January Term, 2006 
3 
 
statute, the rule will control the statute on matters of procedure.”  State v. Slatter 
(1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 452, 454, 20 O.O.3d 383, 423 N.E.2d 100; Fraiberg v. 
Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Div. (1996), 76 Ohio 
St.3d 374, 376, 667 N.E.2d 1189; Section 5(B), Article IV, Ohio Constitution. 
{¶ 9} But Crim.R. 4(A) specifies only that “[i]f it appears from the 
complaint, or from an affidavit or affidavits filed with the complaint, that there is 
probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the 
defendant has committed it, a warrant for the arrest of the defendant, or a 
summons in lieu of a warrant, shall be issued by a judge, magistrate, clerk of 
court, or officer of the court designated by the judge, to any law enforcement 
officer authorized by law to execute or serve it.”  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 10} There is no conflict here between R.C. 2935.10 and Crim.R. 4(A).  
Crim.R. 4(A) applies when affidavits are filed with a valid criminal complaint 
under Crim.R. 3.  R.C. 2935.10 governs the procedure when only affidavits have 
been filed under R.C. 2935.09.  Boylen’s affidavits did not accompany a valid 
criminal complaint. 
{¶ 11} Therefore, the court of appeals did not err in holding that after the 
clerk accepts Boylen’s affidavits for filing as required by R.C. 2935.09, 
subsequent proceedings will proceed pursuant to R.C. 2935.10.  Accordingly, we 
affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Adam Douglas Boylen, pro se. 
______________________