Title: State ex rel. Rowe v. McCown

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Rowe v. McCown, 108 Ohio St.3d 183, 2006-Ohio-548.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. ROWE, APPELLANT, v. MCCOWN, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Rowe v. McCown, 108 Ohio St.3d 183, 2006-Ohio-548.] 
Mandamus inappropriate to compel release from prison. 
(No. 2005-1667 — Submitted January 11, 2006 — Decided February 22, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lawrence County, No. 05-CA-24. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In July 2005, appellant, William E. Rowe Jr., an inmate at 
Chillicothe Correctional Institution, filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for 
Lawrence County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Lawrence County 
Common Pleas Court Judge Frank J. McCown, to release him from prison in 
accordance with a plea agreement that he claimed the state had breached.  As 
required by R.C. 2969.25, he attached an affidavit describing a prior civil action 
he had filed against a government employee within the previous five years. 
{¶ 2} On July 25, 2005, the court of appeals nevertheless sua sponte 
dismissed Rowe’s petition for failure to comply with the R.C. 2969.25 affidavit 
requirement. 
{¶ 3} In his appeal as of right, Rowe asserts that the court of appeals 
erred in dismissing his petition. 
{¶ 4} Dismissal of Rowe’s mandamus petition was warranted because 
Rowe requested release from prison.  Habeas corpus, rather than mandamus, is 
the proper action to seek this type of relief.  State ex rel. Nelson v. Griffin, 103 
Ohio St.3d 167, 2004-Ohio-4754, 814 N.E.2d 866, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 5} Moreover, Rowe has or had “an adequate legal remedy to rectify 
any alleged breach of plea agreement by filing a motion with the sentencing court 
to either withdraw his previous guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 or 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
specifically enforce the agreement.”  State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson (1994), 69 
Ohio St.3d 489, 491, 633 N.E.2d 1128.  Rowe could also have appealed any 
judgment by Judge McCown denying his motion for judicial release. 
{¶ 6} Finally, insofar as Rowe may have already unsuccessfully invoked 
some of these alternate remedies, “a writ of mandamus will not lie to relitigate the 
same issue.”  State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 447, 
449, 663 N.E.2d 639. 
{¶ 7} Based on the foregoing, although the court of appeals erred in 
relying on R.C. 2969.25 to dismiss Rowe’s petition, its judgment dismissing the 
petition was appropriate.  Cf. State ex rel. McGrath v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 
100 Ohio St.3d 72, 2003-Ohio-5062, 796 N.E.2d 526, ¶ 8 (“Reviewing courts are 
not authorized to reverse a correct judgment on the basis that some or all of the 
lower court’s reasons are erroneous”).  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. 
__________________ 
 
William E. Rowe, pro se. 
 
Lynn Alan Grimshaw, for appellee. 
______________________