[Cite as State ex rel. Neguse v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Please, 2019-Ohio-564.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio Mekuira Neguse, : 

 Relator, : 

v. : No. 17AP-755 

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 Respondent. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on February 14, 2019 

 

On brief: Mekuria Neguse, pro se. 

On brief: Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and 

Benjamin D. Humphrey, for respondent. 

 

IN MANDAMUS 

DORRIAN, J. 

{¶ 1} In this original action, relator, Mekuira Neguse, requests a writ of mandamus 

ordering respondent, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, to provide him "written 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Post-Conviction Transcript of Proceeding of 

the Evidentiary Hearing relative to the dismissal of his Petition for Relief after Judgment 

filed in Respondent's Court rendered on June 29, 1994." 

{¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, 

this matter was referred to a magistrate who issued a decision, including findings of fact 

and conclusions of law, which is appended hereto. The magistrate recommends this court 

grant respondent's motion to dismiss and dismiss relator's action. 

{¶ 3} No party has filed objections to the magistrate's decision. The case is now 

before this court for review. 
No. 17AP-755 2 

{¶ 4} No error of law or other defect is evident on the face of the magistrate's 

decision. Therefore, we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. 

Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss is granted, and relator's request for a writ of 

mandamus is dismissed. 

Action dismissed.

LUPER SCHUSTER and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 

 

 
No. 17AP-755 3 

APPENDIX 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 

The State ex rel. Mekuria Neguse, : 

 

 Relator, : 

v. : No. 17AP-755 

 

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, : (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 Respondent. : 

 

M A G I S T R A T E ' S D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on May 10, 2018

 

Mekuira Neguse, pro se. 

Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Benjamin D. 

Humphrey, for respondent.

 

IN MANDAMUS 

ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

{¶ 5} Relator, Mekuria Neguse, has filed this original action requesting this court 

issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, 

to provide him with "written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Post-Conviction 

Transcript of Proceeding of the Evidentiary Hearing relative to the dismissal of his Petition 

for Relief after Judgment filed in Respondent's Court rendered on June 29, 1994." 

Findings of Fact:

{¶ 6} 1. Relator is an inmate currently incarcerated at Warren Correctional 

Institution. 
No. 17AP-755 4 

{¶ 7} 2. Relator's first encounter with the Franklin County, Ohio court system 

occurred in 1989 when he was indicted on a single count of felonious assault with a gun 

specification and a single count of drug abuse. 

{¶ 8} 3. On November 14, 1989, relator entered a plea of guilty to the drug abuse 

count as charged and to the stipulated lesser-included offense of assault. Relator was 

sentenced to serve six months on the assault conviction and one and one-half years on the 

drug abuse conviction. The trial court suspended incarceration in the drug abuse case and 

placed relator on probation. 

{¶ 9} 4. While on probation, in January 1990, relator killed a man, and was 

ultimately convicted of murder with a gun specification, and having a weapon while under 

disability. The trial court imposed a sentence of 15 years to life, plus an additional 3 years 

for the gun specification. Relator's probation in the drug abuse case was revoked and the 

trial court re-imposed the one and one-half year sentence on that conviction to be served 

consecutive to the sentence on the murder conviction. 

{¶ 10} 5. This court affirmed relator's convictions in State v. Neguse, 71 Ohio 

App.3d 596 (10th Dist.1991). 

{¶ 11} 6. Over the next 26 years, relator filed and was denied several postconviction 

motions pertaining to his drug abuse and assault convictions. As is relevant to the instant 

mandamus action: 

[I]n 1993, [relator] filed a motion to vacate or set aside 

judgment asserting his conviction and sentences are void 

because he was a juvenile (16 years old) at the time of the 

offenses depriving the common pleas court of jurisdiction, no 

jurisdictional hearing was conducted, reliance on the bone 

test was erroneous as he was never examined or a patient of 

Children's Hospital, and his counsel provided ineffective 

assistance. [The state] filed a memorandum contra asserting 

[relator] failed to appeal, and the issues raised by [relator] 

were barred under the doctrine of res judicata. A hearing on 

the postconviction motion was held June 29, 1994, and the 

trial court overruled [relator]'s motion. [Relator] appealed the 

denial of his postconviction motion, and on April 12, 1995, this 

court sua sponte dismissed the appeal due to the lack of a 

timely notice of appeal. 

* * * 
No. 17AP-755 5 

On September 7, 1999, [relator] filed a motion for delayed 

appeal regarding the trial court's denial of his 1993 

postconviction motion. This court denied the motion in 

December 1999. On January 5, 2000, [relator] again filed a 

notice of appeal of the trial court's denial of postconviction 

relief. This court sua sponte dismissed the appeal for lack of a 

timely filed notice of appeal. 

State v. Neguse, 10th Dist. No. 17AP-449, 2018-Ohio-1163, ¶ 10, 12. 

{¶ 12} 7. Relator has continued to file motions to withdraw his guilty plea and for 

relief from judgment. 

{¶ 13} 8. In his current mandamus action, relator continues to attack the trial 

court's denial of his petition for relief from judgment. Relator asserts that he has asked the 

court to provide him with findings of fact and conclusions of law and has repeatedly asked 

for a copy of the transcripts from that proceeding. Relator asserts that the trial court has 

not provided him with same. 

{¶ 14} 9. On March 28, 2018, respondent filed a motion to dismiss instanter 

arguing, in part, that in June 2016, relator filed a similar request in the trial court seeking 

transcripts from the July 29, 1994 proceedings and findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

That motion was denied by the trial court on August 14, 2016, the court finding that it had 

already responded to and provided relator with same. As such, respondent asserts that the 

matter is moot. Further, respondent asserts that relator also requested transcripts of the 

proceedings in October 1995 and the trial court explained that he had already been provided 

a copy of the transcript of proceedings. Further, inasmuch as R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) provides 

a defendant 365 days from the transmission of the record to file a petition for 

postconviction relief, relator's current petition is untimely. 

{¶ 15} 10. On April 10, 2018, relator opposed respondent's motion to dismiss. 

Relator provides the following argument/explanation: 

On or about October 14, 1993, Relator sought Post-Conviction 

relief in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas after 

having been convicted of drug abuse on case no. 89-09-4079, 

after denying Relator's Post-Conviction Petition in an entry 

filed June 29, 1994. Relator filed Notice of appeal July 26, 

1994, Relator's brief was originally due to be filed on or before 

October 11, 1994. Relator did not file a brief and the Court of 

Appeals notified Relator, by letter, that unless a brief was filed 

on or before November 25, 1994, this Appeal would be 
No. 17AP-755 6 

dismissed. Relator did not file a brief, but did file a motion for 

extension of time to file a brief. See, Ex. #A. The motion was 

granted and Relator was given additional time until 

December 9, 1994, to file a brief. Relator, has not filed his 

brief. Accordingly, the appeal was sua sponte dismiss[ed] for 

failure of Relator to file a brief. Relator, notified Franklin 

County Clerk of Court by letter stating that I had a hearing 

held June 29, 1994, but need to know the Court of Appeals 

case no. See response from the Clerk of Court September 30, 

1994, the Clerk stated in response letter, "your other two cases 

are not finalized yet with a valid entry." See, Ex. B. 

Later on February 3, 1995, the trial court issued a nun[c] pro 

tunc entry wherein the trial court denied Relator's petition for 

Post-Conviction and while the entry noted "Finding of Fact 

and Conclusions of Law" filed, none accompanied the entry. 

Now, Relator asserts that this Court's sua sponte dismissal of 

Relator['s] Appeal in March 3, 1995, case no. 95APA-352, on 

the grounds of lack of timeliness was error, because this Court 

should have dismissed Relator's appeal on the grounds that 

the judgment from which Relator appealed was not a final 

appealable order, because it lacked Finding of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law. Relying on State v. Mapson (1982) 1 Ohio 

St.3d 217, wherein the Supreme Court of Ohio held that 

former R.C. 2953.21(C), mandates that a judgment denying 

Post-Conviction relief includes Findings of Fact and 

Conclusion of Law, and that a Judgment entry filed without 

such findings is incomplete and it thus does not Commence 

the running of the time period for filing an appeal therefrom," 

[I]d. [a]t 218. 

{¶ 16} In this argument, relator acknowledges that his appeal following the July 29, 

1994 hearing was untimely and that he failed to file a brief. However, he asserts that this 

court erred in dismissing his appeal due to his untimeliness and failure to prosecute and 

should instead have remanded the matter to the trial court for findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. 

Conclusions of Law: 

{¶ 17} For the reasons that follow, it is this magistrate's decision that this court 

should grant respondent's motion and dismiss relator's mandamus petition. 

{¶ 18} A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted is procedural and tests the sufficiency of the complaint. State ex rel. Hanson v. 
No. 17AP-755 7 

Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 65 Ohio St.3d 545 (1992). In reviewing the complaint, the 

court must take all the material allegations as admitted and construe all reasonable 

inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Id.

{¶ 19} In order for a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted, it must appear beyond doubt from the complaint that relator 

can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery. O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants 

Union, 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975). As such, a complaint for writ of mandamus is not subject 

to dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) if the complaint alleges the existence of a legal duty by 

the respondent and the lack of an adequate remedy at law for relator with sufficient 

particularity to put the respondent on notice of the substance of the claim being asserted 

against it, and it appears that relator might prove some set of facts entitling him to relief. 

State ex rel. Boggs v. Springfield Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 72 Ohio St.3d 94 (1995). 

For the following reasons, respondent's motion should be granted and relator's complaint 

should be dismissed. 

{¶ 20} In 1989, relator pled guilty to the drug abuse count and to the stipulated 

lesser-included offense of assault, was found guilty, and was sentenced to serve six months 

on the assault conviction, and one and one-half years on the drug abuse conviction. The 

trial court suspended incarceration in the drug abuse case and placed relator on probation 

for three years. Relator did not appeal his convictions. 

{¶ 21} In 1990, relator was convicted of murder with a gun specification, and having 

a weapon while under disability, and he was sentenced to serve 15 years to life plus an 

additional 3 years incarceration for the gun specification. Counsel for relator filed a motion 

to dismiss in the drug abuse case asserting the trial court lacked jurisdiction because relator 

had been a juvenile on the date the offense was committed. This was an issue which was 

originally raised in 1984 when it was ultimately determined that relator was not a juvenile 

on the date of the offense. The trial court held a hearing, revoked relator's probation on the 

drug abuse case, and re-imposed the one and one-half year sentence. 

{¶ 22} In affirming, this court addressed the issue of the trial court's denial of 

relator's motion to dismiss ultimately finding that the evidence was sufficient to establish 

that relator was not a juvenile. 
No. 17AP-755 8 

{¶ 23} This is the same issue which relator has repeatedly challenged for nearly 30 

years. In arguing now that this court erred in affirming his convictions, the magistrate 

specifically notes that relator had the opportunity to file an appeal of this court's decision 

to the Supreme Court of Ohio but did not. Relator continues to take an issue, which was 

resolved against him, looking for new ways to challenge the original conviction. The 

magistrate finds this question has been raised and answered by both the trial court and this 

court and relator is not entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to provide 

him with additional findings of fact and conclusions of law. Further, the issue concerning 

the transcript has also been addressed numerous times and relator has not demonstrated 

that he is entitled to a second copy of the transcript at state expense. 

{¶ 24} Based on the foregoing, it is this magistrate's decision that relator has not 

demonstrated that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus and this court should grant 

respondent's motion and dismiss relator's mandamus petition. 

 /S/ MAGISTRATE 

 STEPHANIE BISCA 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES 

Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) provides that a party shall not assign as 

error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or 

legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a 

finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), 

unless the party timely and specifically objects to that factual 

finding or legal conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).