Title: State ex rel. Boler v. McCarthy

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. Boler v. McCarthy, Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-500.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2023-OHIO-500 
THE STATE EX REL. BOLER, APPELLANT, v. MCCARTHY, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Boler v. McCarthy, Slip Opinion No.  
2023-Ohio-500.] 
Prohibition and mandamus—Appellant had an adequate remedy in ordinary course 
of law in that he could have asserted claim in direct appeal—Court of 
appeals’ dismissal of complaint affirmed. 
(No. 2022-1157—Submitted January 10, 2023—Decided February 23, 2023.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Athens County, No. 22CA12. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Phillip Dionte Boler, filed a complaint for writs of 
prohibition and mandamus in the court of appeals seeking the vacatur of his 
criminal convictions.  The court of appeals dismissed the complaint, concluding 
that Boler’s claim is barred under the doctrine of res judicata and that Boler had an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law by way of a direct appeal of his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2 
convictions.  Boler appeals the dismissal of his complaint.  Because Boler had an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, we affirm. 
Background 
{¶ 2} In 2009, a jury found Boler guilty of aggravated robbery and complicity 
to commit murder, both with firearm specifications.  He was sentenced to an 
aggregate prison term of 28 years to life. 
{¶ 3} At issue here is Boler’s complaint for writs of prohibition and 
mandamus, which he filed against appellee, Athens County Court of Common 
Pleas Judge George P. McCarthy, in the Fourth District Court of Appeals in July 
2022.  In his complaint, Boler argued that his convictions must be vacated because 
the trial court lacked jurisdiction to, in his view, misconstrue and misapply Ohio’s 
aggravated-robbery statute, R.C. 2911.01.  The court of appeals granted Judge 
McCarthy’s motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), concluding that Boler’s 
claim was barred under the doctrine of res judicata.  The court also concluded that 
Boler had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law because he could 
have raised his claim that the trial court misapplied R.C. 2911.01 when he directly 
appealed his convictions. 
{¶ 4} Boler has appealed to this court as of right. 
Analysis 
{¶ 5} To dismiss a claim pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), it must appear beyond 
doubt from the complaint that the relator can prove no set of facts warranting relief, 
after all factual allegations are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are 
made in his favor.  State ex rel. Natl. Elec. Contrs. Assn., Ohio Conference v. Ohio 
Bur. of Emp. Servs., 83 Ohio St.3d 179, 181, 699 N.E.2d 64 (1998).  We review de 
novo the court of appeals’ dismissal of Boler’s complaint.  State ex rel. Brown v. 
Nusbaum, 152 Ohio St.3d 284, 2017-Ohio-9141, 95 N.E.3d 365, ¶ 10. 
{¶ 6} To state a claim for a writ of prohibition, Boler must plead facts 
showing that the trial court exercised judicial power without authority and that denial 
January Term, 2023 
 
3 
of the writ would result in injury for which he lacks an adequate remedy in the 
ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Elder v. Camplese, 144 Ohio St.3d 89, 2015-
Ohio-3628, 40 N.E.3d 1138, ¶ 13.  To state a claim for a writ of mandamus, Boler 
must plead facts establishing that he has a clear legal right to the relief he requests, 
that Judge McCarthy has a clear legal duty to provide that relief, and that there is 
no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Love v. 
O’Donnell, 150 Ohio St.3d 378, 2017-Ohio-5659, 81 N.E.3d 1250, ¶ 3. 
{¶ 7} The court of appeals erred in dismissing Boler’s complaint on res 
judicata grounds.  “[R]es judicata is an affirmative defense that is not a proper basis 
for dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”  State 
ex rel. Newell v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 165 Ohio St.3d 341, 2021-
Ohio-3662, 179 N.E.3d 84, ¶ 10. 
{¶ 8} Nevertheless, Boler did have an adequate remedy at law.  In fact, 
Boler does not dispute that he could have raised his claim that the trial court 
misapplied R.C. 2911.01 when he directly appealed his convictions.  Therefore, the 
court of appeals correctly dismissed Boler’s complaint. 
{¶ 9} Boler couches his claim in jurisdictional terms, arguing that the trial 
court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction to misapply R.C. 2911.01.  It 
is true that a relator need not establish the lack of an adequate remedy if there was 
a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction.  See State ex rel. Dannaher v. 
Crawford, 78 Ohio St.3d 391, 393, 678 N.E.2d 549 (1997) (“where a lower court 
patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction over the cause, prohibition and 
mandamus will issue to * * * correct the results of prior jurisdictionally 
unauthorized actions, notwithstanding the availability of appeal”).  But here, the 
trial court plainly had subject-matter jurisdiction over Boler’s criminal case under 
R.C. 2931.03, which gives common pleas courts subject-matter jurisdiction over 
felony cases.  Boler has not identified any statute that removed the trial court’s 
jurisdiction.  See Ohio High School Athletic Assn. v. Ruehlman, 157 Ohio St.3d 296, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4 
2019-Ohio-2845, 136 N.E.3d 436, ¶ 9 (“when we have found that a court of common 
pleas patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction, it is almost always because a 
statute explicitly removed that jurisdiction”).  Boler therefore cannot avoid the lack-
of-adequate-remedy requirement. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 10} Because Boler had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the 
law, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment. 
Judgment affirmed. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, 
and DETERS, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Phillip Dionte Boler, pro se. 
George P. McCarthy, Judge, pro se. 
_________________