Case Title: State ex rel. Neal v. Mandros

Citation: 2020-Ohio-4866

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2020-10-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Neal v. Mandros, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4866.] 
 
 
 
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. 2020-OHIO-4866 
THE STATE EX REL. NEAL, APPELLANT, v. MANDROS, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Neal v. Mandros, Slip Opinion No.  
2020-Ohio-4866.] 
Mandamus—Inmate’s request for judicial release does not state a valid claim for 
a writ of mandamus—Court of appeals’ dismissal of complaint affirmed. 
(No. 2020-0322—Submitted August 4, 2020—Decided October 14, 2020.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-20-1030. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Larry Neal, an inmate at the North Central Correctional 
Complex, sought a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Lucas County Court of 
Common Pleas Judge Dean Mandros, to grant him judicial release from prison under 
R.C. 2929.20.  The Sixth District Court of Appeals sua sponte dismissed Neal’s 
complaint.  We affirm. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2
Background 
{¶ 2} Judge Mandros sentenced Neal in September 2018 to four years in 
prison after Neal pleaded guilty to trafficking in heroin.  Neal alleges that at the end 
of the sentencing hearing, Judge Mandros told him he would be inclined to grant a 
motion for judicial release after Neal had served six months of his sentence.  Neal 
concedes that the sentencing-hearing transcript does not contain this alleged 
statement by Judge Mandros. 
{¶ 3} After serving nearly eight months of his four-year sentence, Neal filed 
a motion for judicial release under R.C. 2929.20(C)(2).  Neal’s motion did not 
mention the alleged statement by Judge Mandros at the sentencing hearing that he 
would be inclined to grant judicial release.  Judge Mandros denied the motion, 
noting Neal’s eight prior felony convictions and an institutional-report summary 
indicating that Neal had been involved in a fight with another inmate. 
{¶ 4} In January 2020, Neal filed this mandamus action in the Sixth District.  
Neal alleged that Judge Mandros’s reasons for denying judicial release were 
erroneous because Neal has only three prior felony convictions and was only 
defending himself in his fight with the other inmate.  Neal further alleged that Judge 
Mandros should be bound to “keep [his] word” that he would grant judicial release.  
Neal demanded a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Mandros to grant judicial 
release under R.C. 2929.20.1 
{¶ 5} The Sixth District sua sponte dismissed Neal’s complaint.  The court 
held that Neal had failed to state a claim for relief in mandamus because the grant 
or denial of judicial release is within the discretion of the trial-court judge.  At best, 
                                                 
1.  In the alternative, Neal requested either (1) a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Mandros to 
reconsider judicial release based on the facts presented in the complaint or (2) a writ of mandamus 
ordering that “the record be corrected” to state that Neal has three prior felony convictions, not eight.  
The Sixth District did not rule on either of these alternative requests, and Neal does not develop any 
argument specific to them in this appeal. 
 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
the court noted, Neal could hope to show only that Judge Mandros abused his 
discretion in denying judicial release, which is not a proper basis for granting a writ 
of mandamus.  See R.C. 2731.03. 
{¶ 6} Neal has timely appealed to this court as of right. 
Analysis 
{¶ 7} Neal first argues that the Sixth District’s judgment should be reversed 
because the court dismissed his complaint sua sponte.  Neal contends that he 
complied with notice-pleading standards and that the sua sponte dismissal deprived 
him of the chance to litigate his case and satisfy the requirements for obtaining a 
writ of mandamus. 
{¶ 8} The Sixth District’s sua sponte dismissal is not a per se basis for 
reversal.  Sua sponte dismissal of a mandamus complaint is appropriate “only 
‘when a complaint is frivolous or the claimant obviously cannot prevail on the facts 
alleged in the complaint.’ ”  State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer, 147 Ohio St.3d 462, 
2016-Ohio-5781, 67 N.E.3d 755, ¶ 12, quoting State ex rel. Scott v. Cleveland, 112 
Ohio St.3d 324, 2006-Ohio-6573, 859 N.E.2d 923, ¶ 14; accord State ex rel. Duran 
v. Kelsey, 106 Ohio St.3d 58, 2005-Ohio-3674, 831 N.E.2d 430, ¶ 7.  Thus, the 
relevant inquiry is whether, after presuming the truth of all material factual 
allegations of Neal’s complaint and making all reasonable inferences in his favor, 
it is beyond doubt that he could prove no set of facts entitling him to a writ of 
mandamus.  See Scott at ¶ 14.  For the reasons detailed below, dismissal of Neal’s 
complaint was warranted. 
{¶ 9} To obtain a writ of mandamus, Neal must establish (1) a clear legal 
right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of Judge Mandros to 
provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  
Bunting at ¶ 10.  The Sixth District determined that Neal did not have a clear legal 
right to judicial release and that Judge Mandros did not have a clear legal duty to 
grant Neal’s motion for it.  But dismissal of Neal’s mandamus claim for judicial 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4
release was warranted for a different reason: habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, 
is the proper action to seek release from prison, State ex rel. Rowe v. McCown, 108 
Ohio St.3d 183, 2006-Ohio-548, 842 N.E.2d 51, ¶ 4. 
{¶ 10} In Rowe, an inmate filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking 
to compel the trial-court judge to release him from prison pursuant to a plea 
agreement that he claimed the court had breached by not releasing him.  The court 
of appeals dismissed the mandamus complaint on the basis that Rowe had failed to 
comply with R.C. 2969.25’s affidavit requirement when filing his mandamus 
action.  This court determined that the court of appeals’ rationale was erroneous but 
nevertheless affirmed, concluding that dismissal was warranted because a petition 
for a writ of habeas corpus, not a writ of mandamus, is the proper vehicle for 
seeking release from prison.  Id. 
{¶ 11} Our decision in Rowe is applicable here.  Neal seeks a writ of 
mandamus to compel his release from prison when the proper writ for that purpose 
is a writ of habeas corpus.  Neal therefore has failed to state a valid claim for a writ 
of mandamus.  We affirm the dismissal of Neal’s mandamus complaint, albeit for 
reasons different from those expressed by the Sixth District.  See Agee v. Russell, 
92 Ohio St.3d 540, 548, 751 N.E.2d 1043 (2001) (affirming denial of writ of habeas 
corpus for reasons different from those of the court of appeals). 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 
and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Larry Neal, pro se. 
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Evy M. Jarrett, 
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________