Title: State ex rel. Blanton v. Municipal Court (Hany)

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Blanton v. Hany, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4195. 
 
 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-4195 
THE STATE EX REL. BLANTON, APPELLANT, v. HANY, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Blanton v. Hany,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4195.] 
Appeal from denial of writ of mandamus—Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2012-0719—Submitted September 12, 2012—Decided September 18, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ottawa County, 
No. OT-12-005, 2012-Ohio-1099. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request 
of appellant, Kyle W. Blanton, for a writ of mandamus.  Blanton asked that 
appellee, Ottawa County Municipal Court Judge Frederick C. Hany II, be ordered 
to vacate his judgment dismissing a misdemeanor case against Blanton.  The 
dismissal allowed the state to seek a felony indictment against him.  Blanton also 
seeks a hearing to consider Blanton’s “counterclaim” against dismissal.  Blanton 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
appealed the dismissal of the municipal court case.  The appeal was dismissed but 
has been reinstated. 
{¶ 2} Blanton had an adequate legal remedy by way of his reinstated 
appeal from the judgment dismissing his case.  Mandamus will not issue when the 
relator has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  R.C. 2731.05; see 
also State ex rel. Nickleson v. Mayberry, 131 Ohio St.3d 416, 2012-Ohio-1300, 
965 N.E.2d 1000, ¶ 2; State v. Sweet, 72 Ohio St.3d 375, 376, 650 N.E.2d 450 
(1995) (defendant could have raised on appeal the allegation that appellate 
counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial court’s violation of Crim.R. 48(A) 
in dismissing indictments).  Insofar as he additionally claims that Judge Hany 
failed to comply with Crim.R. 12(F) by failing to state his findings in determining 
the motion, this contention is “regularly addressed on appeal.”  State ex rel. Ross 
v. State, 102 Ohio St.3d 73, 2004-Ohio-1827, 806 N.E.2d 553, ¶ 5.  And “ ‘even if 
these [alternate] remedies are no longer available to [defendant], he is not thereby 
entitled to an extraordinary writ.’ ”  Id. at ¶ 6, quoting Jackson v. Wilson, 100 
Ohio St.3d 315, 2003-Ohio-6112, 798 N.E.2d 1086, ¶ 9. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Kyle W. Blanton, pro se. 
 
Mark E. Mulligan, Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew M. 
Bigler, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
______________________