Case Title: State ex rel. Sevayega v. Reis

Citation: 2000-Ohio-383

Docket Number: 19992251 and 19992252

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-05-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Sevayega v. Reis, 88 Ohio St.3d 458, 2000-Ohio-383.] 
 
 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. SEVAYEGA, APPELLANT, v. REIS, APPELLEE. 
THE STATE EX REL. SEVAYEGA, APPELLANT, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND POLICE  
RECORDS DEPARTMENT, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Sevayega v. Reis (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 458.] 
Public records — Mandamus sought to compel respondents to copy and mail to 
relator certain records he had requested relating to his criminal case — 
Dismissal of complaints affirmed. 
(Nos. 99-2251 and 99-2252 — Submitted March 7, 2000 — Decided May 17, 
2000.) 
APPEALS from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, Nos. 77297 and 77224. 
 
The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas convicted appellant, 
Reginald Sevayega, of one count of rape and two counts of tampering with 
evidence and sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of eight to twenty-six 
years.  The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the common pleas court.  
State v. Sevayega (Sept. 22, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 65942, unreported, 1994 
WL 521016, discretionary appeal not allowed (1995), 71 Ohio St.3d 1477, 645 
N.E.2d 1257. 
 
In November 1999, Sevayega filed two complaints in the court of appeals.  
Sevayega alleged that appellees, Dr. Frank Reis of the Cuyahoga Community 
 
 
2
College Human Resources and Personnel Department and the records custodian of 
the Cleveland Police Department, had failed to copy and mail to Sevayega certain 
records he had requested relating to his criminal case.  He claimed that he had 
submitted twenty dollars to each appellee to cover the costs of copying and mailing 
the requested records.  Sevayega demanded that the court of appeals issue writs of 
mandamus to compel appellees to copy and mail the requested records under R.C. 
149.43, Ohio’s Public Records Act.  The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed 
both cases. 
 
These causes are now before the court upon appeals of right. 
__________________ 
 
Reginald D. Sevayega, pro se. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We affirm the judgments of the court of appeals for the 
reasons stated in its opinions.  As we have consistently and unanimously held, 
appellees do not have a clear legal duty under R.C. 149.43 to transmit copies of 
requested records by mail or other means.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Porter v. 
Cleveland Dept. of Pub. Safety (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 258, 259, 703 N.E.2d 308, 
309; State ex rel. Warren v. Warner (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 432, 433, 704 N.E.2d 
1228, 1229; State ex rel. Iacovone v. Kaminski (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 189, 190, 690 
N.E.2d 4, 5; State ex rel. Mayes v. Holman (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 147, 149, 666 
 
 
3
N.E.2d 1132, 1134; State ex rel. Mancini v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1994), 
69 Ohio St.3d 486, 488, 633 N.E.2d 1126, 1127.  And nothing prevents Sevayega 
from naming a designee to obtain the requested records.  State ex rel. Nelson v. 
Fuerst (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 436, 438, 655 N.E.2d 825, 826. 
 
In so holding, we recognize that R.C. 149.43 has since been amended to, 
among other things, require a public office to transmit copies of a public record 
through the United States mail if so requested.  Am.Sub.S.B. No. 78, effective 
December 16, 1999.  But this amendment applies “only to requests for the 
inspection or copying of public records or releases of information made on or after 
the effective date of that section,” which is December 16, 1999.  Id. at Section 3; 
see, also, State ex rel. The Plain Dealer v. Ohio Dept. of Ins. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 
513, 523, 687 N.E.2d 661, 671.  Therefore, this amended provision does not apply 
to Sevayega’s requests here. 
 
And even if it did, R.C. 149.43(B)(4) now provides that “[a] public office or 
person responsible for public records is not required to permit a person who is 
incarcerated pursuant to a criminal conviction or a juvenile adjudication to inspect 
or to obtain a copy of any public record concerning a criminal investigation or 
prosecution or concerning what would be a criminal investigation or prosecution if 
the subject of the investigation or prosecution were an adult, unless the request to 
inspect or to obtain a copy of the record is for the purpose of acquiring information 
 
 
4
that is subject to release as a public record under this section and the judge who 
imposed the sentence or made the adjudication with respect to the person, or the 
judge’s successor in office, finds that the information sought in the public record is 
necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim of the person.” 
 
Finally, to the extent that Sevayega requests records that are exempt from 
disclosure in order to support a future postconviction relief petition, “ ‘[a] 
defendant in a criminal case who has exhausted the direct appeals of her or his 
conviction may not avail herself or himself of R.C. 149.43 to support a petition for 
postconviction relief.’ ”  State ex rel. Larson v. Cleveland Pub. Safety Dir. (1996), 
74 Ohio St.3d 464, 465, 659 N.E.2d 1260, 1261, quoting State ex rel. Steckman v. 
Jackson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 639 N.E.2d 83, paragraph six of the syllabus. 
 
Based on the foregoing, the judgments of the court of appeals are affirmed. 
Judgments affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
RESNICK, J., not participating.