[Cite as Hillman v. Larrison, 2016-Ohio-7971.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

Robert L. Hillman, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, : 

 No. 16AP-374 

v. : (C.P.C. No. 15CV-2664)

David Larrison, : (ACCELERATED CALENDAR) 

 Defendant-Appellee. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on December 1, 2016 

 

On brief: Robert L. Hillman, pro se. 

On brief: Richard C. Pfeiffer, Jr., City Attorney, and 

Timothy J. Mangan. 

 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

HORTON, J. 

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Robert L. Hillman, a pro se inmate, appeals the April 25, 

2016 ruling of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas which dismissed for a second 

time Hillman's case without following the instructions by this superior Court. For the 

following reasons, we reverse and remand the instant case with instructions for the trial 

court to follow this Court's initial instructions as set forth in our February 23, 2016 

decision. 

{¶ 2} Hillman appeals the following assignments of error for our consideration: 

[I.] APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE TRIAL COURT 

DENIED HIM DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION 

OF THE LAW UNDER THE 1ST, 5TH, AND 14TH 

AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES 

CONSTITUTIONS [SIC] WHERE IT SHOWED BIAS, AND 

PREJUDICE, BY REVISITING THE TENTH DISTRICT 

COURT[']S REMAND ORDER, AND ACTING CONTRARY 

TO IT, VIOLATING THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE. 
No. 16AP-374 2 

[II.] APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE TRIAL COURT 

DENIED HIM DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL: PROTECTION 

OF THE LAW UNDER THE 1ST, FIFTH, AND 

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES 

CONSTITUTIONS [SIC] WHERE THE TRIAL COURT 

ABUSED IT'S [SIC] DISCRETION BY SHOWING BIAS AND 

PREJUDICE AGAINST HIM IN DISMISSING THE 

COMPLAINT, VIOLATING THE REMAND ORDER TENTH 

DISTRICT APPELLATE COURT. 

[III.] APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT HE WAS DENIED 

DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW 

UNDER THE 1ST, 5TH, AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE 

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS [SIC] WHERE THE 

TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE PLAINTIFF'SAPPELLANT'S RIGHTS AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY, 

AND (2) FOR NOT ORDERING THE CLERK OF COURT TO 

CORRECT THE MISFILING MADE IN THE CASE WHERE 

APPELLANT FILED A **NEW CRIMINAL COMPLAINT*** 

WHICH THE CLERKS OFFICE FILED UNDER A 

TERMINATED CASE NUMBER IN 15CV-2664, AND THAN 

[SIC] RECHARGED [SIC] THE APPELLANT AGAIN $101.00. 

{¶ 3} On February 23, 2016, we reversed the dismissal of the trial court while 

noting the following factual procedure: 

Appellant is an inmate at the Chillicothe Correctional 

Institution. On March 27, 2015, appellant filed a pleading 

captioned "(ACCUSATION BY AFFIDAVIT) (CRIMINAL 

COMPLAINT)" ("affidavit") against appellee, who is a city of 

Columbus police officer. Appellant alleged in the affidavit that 

appellee committed perjury during appellant's criminal trial. 

Appellant's affidavit specifically indicated it was being filed, 

pursuant to HN1 R.C. 2935.09 and 2935.10, which permit a 

private citizen to file an affidavit charging an offense against 

another person. 

On April 24, 2015, appellee filed a motion to dismiss for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 

Appellee asserted that (1) there is a process within the 

criminal justice system for arrest warrants to be issued, but a 

suit in a civil case is not part of that process, and (2) appellant 

failed to file an affidavit of prior civil actions that complies 

with R.C. 2969.25(A). 

On May 14, 2015, appellant filed a motion arguing that the 

court lacked jurisdiction over the case. Appellant asserted that 
No. 16AP-374 3 

the clerk of courts deliberately misfiled the case as a civil case 

when it was clearly an affidavit filed under R.C. 2935.09. 

Appellant requested that the trial court not issue any finding 

but, instead, transfer the case to criminal court or forward it 

to the prosecutor's office for investigation. 

 On July 15, 2015, the trial court issued an order in which it 

granted appellee's motion to dismiss, terminated the case, and 

assigned costs to appellant. On July 30, 2015, the trial court 

issued a cost bill for $95. Appellant appeals the judgment of 

the trial court, asserting the following assignment of error: 

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED IT'S DISCRETION 

WHEN IT IMPOSED UPON THE APPELLANT COURT 

COST AND FILING FEES WITHOUT HAVING 

ACQUIRED SUBJECT-MATTER OR PERSONAL 

JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE IN VIOLATION OF 

THE APPELLANT'S 1ST, 5TH, AND 14TH 

AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE UNITED STATES 

CONSTITUTIONS TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL 

PROTECTION OF THE LAW. 

In his assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial 

court erred when it imposed court costs and filing fees on him 

without having acquired subject-matter or personal 

jurisdiction. Specifically, appellant contends that he did not 

file a motion to dismiss but, instead, filed a motion stating 

that the trial court had no jurisdiction to do anything because 

it was misfiled by the clerk of courts as a civil matter when it 

was an affidavit pursuant to R.C. 2935.09. He asserts that the 

trial court could not order him to pay the costs of an action 

that he never intended to file. 

Hillman v. Larrison, 10th Dist. No. 15AP-730, 2016-Ohio-666, ¶ 2-6. 

{¶ 4} On remand, the trial court once again failed to follow our instructions and 

dismissed the case due to Hillman filing an "invalid" affidavit. The trial court stated that 

the affidavit was invalid because it lacked a notary stamp or seal. The trial court also 

believed that it was precluded from conducting a review under R.C. 2935.09 and 2935.10 

pursuant to our instructions because "a valid affidavit is a prerequisite." (Apr. 25, 2016 

Decision, Entry & Order at 5.) The trial court stated that this court "apparently missed the 

fact that the document did not contain the notary's seal or stamp." (Decision, Entry & 

Order at 4.) 
No. 16AP-374 4 

{¶ 5} On May 16, 2016, Hillman appealed the judgment of the trial court issued 

on April 25, 2016. Hillman asserts three assignments of error. However, all three 

assignments of error are couched in allegations of constitutional violations, which state 

that the trial court's dismissal violated his rights of due process and equal protection. 

Hillman correctly notes that the trial court failed to follow this Court's instructions and 

violated the law of the case doctrine when it dismissed the case. We do not believe it is 

necessary to address the constitutional issues and reverse. 

{¶ 6} The Tenth District's previous decision considered Hillman's affidavit to be 

facially valid: "Appellant's affidavit was certified by a notary public and indicates in its 

first sentence that it is being filed pursuant to R.C. 2935.09(A) and (D) and 2935.10." 

Hillman at ¶ 13. In spite of this determination, the trial court made its own examination 

of the validity of the affidavit. Furthermore, it applied a stricter standard than the 

"substantial compliance" required by Ohio courts. See, e.g., Stern v. Bd. of Elections, 14 

Ohio St.2d 175, 180, 183 (1968) (affirming validity of affidavit in spite of "a technical 

defect in the prima facie proof of compliance with the statute with regard to the jurat of 

the notary public"); Anderson v. Mitchell, 8th Dist. No. 99876, 2014-Ohio-1058 

(applying a "substantial compliance" standard to issue of whether affidavits were 

notarized in accordance with R.C. 147.04 and noting that the "affidavit in Stern was 

sufficient even though the notary failed to sign or imprint his seal onto the affidavit 

because the notary's name was legibly printed on the document"). It is clear the trial 

court, in addition to failing to follow our instructions, applied its own standard in 

determining the validity of said affidavit. 

{¶ 7} The law of the case doctrine extends to all issues previously decided as 

finally settled. McCoy v. Engle, 42 Ohio App.3d 204, 206 (10th Dist.1987). On remand, 

the trial court is only "free to change factual findings previously made by that court as to 

issues not passed upon by the reviewing court." Id. The validity of Hillman's affidavit 

was not the subject of the previous appeal and this Court previously considered it valid 

before remanding the case. Because of this, the trial court was not free to revisit the 

issue of the affidavit's validity as if it had not been settled and find a way to dismiss 

Hillman's case rather than comply with the mandate of this Court. It is also noteworthy 

that appellee does not even address Hillman's law of the case argument in its response. 

Thus, we remand the case with instructions to apply with the statute, as this Court 
No. 16AP-374 5 

previously held. Under R.C. 2935.10, the trial court judge has "only two options: 1) issue 

a warrant or 2) refer the matter to the prosecutor for investigation if there is a belief that 

the affidavit lacks a meritorious claim, i.e. probable cause, or was not made in good 

faith." State ex rel. Brown v. Jeffries, 4th Dist. No. 11CA3275, 2012-Ohio-1522, ¶ 9. 

{¶ 8} For the foregoing reasons, we sustain Hillman's first assignment of error 

insofar as it asserts that the trial court erred by violating the law of the case doctrine, but 

overrule in regards to the constitutional violations asserted. We remand with instructions 

to perform the mandate this Court previously issued. Finally, all outstanding issues raised 

by Hillman's other assignments of error are overruled as moot. 

Judgment reversed; case remanded. 

TYACK and KLATT, JJ., concur. 

_________________