Title: State ex rel. Konoff v. Shafer

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

THE STATE EX REL. KONOFF, APPELLANT, V. SHAFER, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Konoff v. Shafer (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Mandamus to compel records custodian to correct aggregate minimum term of 
incarceration pursuant to former R.C. 2929.41(E)(2) — Dismissal of 
complaint affirmed. 
 
(No. 97-1291 — Submitted October 7, 1997 — Decided November 19, 
1997.) 
 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 97-CA-38. 
 
In July 1990, the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas convicted 
appellant, Rodney L. Konoff, of attempted murder, attempted rape, aggravated 
burglary, two counts of felonious assault, and a firearm specification.  State v. 
Konoff (Nov. 1, 1991), Ottawa App. No. 90-OT-036, unreported, 1991 WL 
224991.  The common pleas court sentenced Konoff to consecutive prison terms 
of seven to twenty-five years, twelve to fifteen years, fifteen to twenty-five years, 
twelve to fifteen years, twelve to fifteen years, and three years of actual 
incarceration.  Id. 
 
In April 1997, Konoff filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for 
Richland County for a writ of mandamus to compel Sandra Shafer, Records 
Custodian of Mansfield Correctional Institution, to correct his prison record to 
reflect an aggregate minimum term of fifteen years plus three years of actual 
incarceration for the firearm specification pursuant to former R.C. 2929.41(E)(2).1  
Shafer filed a motion to dismiss based on mootness.  In an affidavit attached to her 
motion to dismiss, Shafer noted that Konoff’s records do show that his aggregate 
minimum sentence is fifteen years plus three years of actual incarceration.  Konoff 
then filed a motion to amend his complaint.  Konoff claimed that his records in 
various prison departments still contained incorrect aggregate minimum terms.  
 
2
Konoff also filed a motion for summary judgment and a memorandum in 
opposition to Shafer’s motion to dismiss.  The court of appeals granted Shafer’s 
motion to dismiss and overruled Konoff’s motion to amend. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Rodney L. Konoff, pro se. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Brian M. Zets, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Konoff asserts in his first proposition of law that the court of 
appeals erred by dismissing his complaint based on mootness without considering 
his motion for summary judgment and memorandum in opposition to the motion to 
dismiss.  It is, however, not evident that the court of appeals failed to consider 
Konoff’s motion and memorandum.  See Gaskins v. Shiplevy (1996), 76 Ohio 
St.3d 380, 382, 667 N.E.2d 1194, 1996 (no showing by appellant to contradict 
regularity accorded all judicial proceedings); see, also, State ex rel. Cassels v. 
Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 217, 223, 631 N.E.2d 
150, 155 (“when a trial court fails to rule upon a pretrial motion, it may be 
presumed that the court overruled it”).  In addition, the court of appeals properly 
dismissed Konoff’s complaint based on mootness.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Findlay 
Publishing Co. v. Schroeder (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 580, 581, 669 N.E.2d 835, 837 
(courts may take judicial notice of evidence of mootness in determining Civ.R. 12 
motion to dismiss). 
 
Konoff asserts in his second proposition of law that the court of appeals 
erred in overruling his motion to amend.  But even assuming, as Konoff claimed, 
that Shafer failed to correct all of Konoff’s prison records, Konoff would not have 
 
3
been entitled to the requested writ of mandamus.  See State ex rel. Yonkings v. 
Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (Oct. 28, 1993), Franklin App. No. 93AP-655, 
unreported, 1993 WL 435190, affirmed (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 70, 630 N.E.2d 365 
(writ of mandamus to correct prison record to reflect correct aggregate minimum 
sentence under R.C. 2929.41[E][2] denied because declaratory judgment 
constituted adequate remedy); Schrader v. Vilevac (Jan. 31, 1996), Lorain App. 
No. 95CA006187, unreported, 1996 WL 37762 (writ of mandamus to compel 
compliance with R.C. 2929.41[E][2] will not lie because there was no evidence of 
any present injury to inmate). 
 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
FOOTNOTE: 
1. 
Former R.C. 2929.41(E) provided: 
 
“Consecutive terms of imprisonment imposed shall not exceed: 
 
“* * * 
 
“(2) An aggregate minimum term of fifteen years plus the sum of all three-
year terms of actual incarceration imposed pursuant to section 2929.71 of the 
Revised Code.”  Sub.H.B. No. 65, 142 Ohio Laws, Part I, 1886.