[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Martre v. Reed , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4777.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 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.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2020-O HIO -4777
T HE S TATE EX REL
. M ARTRE , A PPELLANT , v . R EED , J UDGE , A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Martre v. Reed , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4777.] Mandamus—Appellant had adequate remedy in ordinary course of law—Court of appeals’ dismissal of complaint affirmed. (No. 2020-0225—Submitted July 7, 2020—Decided October 6, 2020.)

A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals fo r Allen County, No. 1-19-80.

________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Appellant, Derrick Martre, appeal s the judgment of the Third Di strict Court of Appeals dismissing his c omplaint for a writ of mandamu s against Allen County Court of Common Pleas J udge Jeffrey L. Reed. We affirm. The allegations in the complaint {¶ 2} On May 25, 2017, Martre was arrested on a charge of domestic violence. Martre alleges that upon his arrest, a detective of the Toledo policeS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 department seized and searched his cell phone. But in a supple mental crime report, the police claimed that the search had been conducted pursuant to a search warrant. According to Martre, he was charged with pandering based on dat a recovered from the phone. {¶ 3} Martre initially pleaded no-cont est but then sought to withdraw his plea. Martre alleges that at the hearing on his request to wit hdraw his plea, the trial court heard testimony that (1) Martre’s counsel misinformed him of the facts and evidence before he decided to plead no-contest, (2) the police seized and searched the cell phone before they obtained the search warrant, and (3) the warrant was missing from the record and had not been disclosed during disco very. The trial
court denied Martre’s mo tion to withdraw his plea. {¶ 4} The court of appeals affirmed. On August 1, 2019, Martre filed an application to reopen his appeal , based on his counsel’s failur e to seek inclusion of the warrant in the appellate record. The court of appeals deni ed the motion. Martre also filed three appeals in this court; we declined jurisdictio n over two, State v.
Martre , 157 Ohio St.3d 1523, 2019-Ohio-5327, 137 N.E.3d 103; State v. Martre , 157 Ohio St.3d 1535, 2020-Ohio-122, 137 N.E.3d 1208, and dismis sed a third as untimely, State v. Martre , 157 Ohio St.3d 1509, 2019-Ohio-5193, 136 N.E.3d 497. {¶ 5} Martre alleges that after his c onviction, he obtained a copy of the search warrant and that it shows that the detective’s testimony was false and that
the warrant was defective. Mar tre has filed seven unsuccessful motions in the trial court, including motions to withdraw his plea, to supplement th e record, to introduce new evidence, a nd for postconviction relief. {¶ 6} On December 16, 2019, Martre filed an original action for a wri t of mandamus in the court of appeals. In his prayer for relief, Ma rtre asked that “[t]he certified search warrant be allowed as part of the record.” 1 On February 4, 2020,

1. Martre also requested (1) an evidentiary hearing on the lega lity of the search warrant, (2) an order striking the supplemental crime report and other evidence from the record, and (3) an order vacatingJanuary Term, 2020

3 the court of appeals granted Judge Reed’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The
court held that Martre had had a n adequate remedy in the ordina ry course of the
law and that mandamus therefore would not issue: he could have raised the matter during the direct appeal of his conviction as well as in a peti tion to vacate his plea
and conviction. {¶ 7} Martre has timely appealed. Legal analysis {¶ 8} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the relator must establis h, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) a clear legal right to the r equested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide it, a nd (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth , 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6, 13. For a court to dismiss a mandamus complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it must appear beyond doubt from t he complaint that the relator can prove no set of facts warranting relief, after all factual allegations of the complaint are presumed true and all reasonable inferences a re made in the
relator’s 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 a decision granting a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B) (6). Alford v. Collins-McGregor Operating Co. , 152 Ohio St.3d 303, 2018-Ohio-8, 95 N.E.3d 382, ¶ 10. {¶ 9} As his sole proposition of law, Ma rtre argues that the court of appeals erred because it failed to construe the allegations in the ligh t most favorable to him. He notes that Ohio is a notice-pleading state, and he asserts t hat his complaint alleged sufficient facts to show that he was entitled to have t he search warrant added

his no-contest plea and conviction and remanding the case for t rial. Martre’s appeal does not address these requests.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 to the record in his criminal case. But the issue is not wheth er the warrant should be part of the record; the issue is whether mandamus is the pro per avenue by which to pursue this request. {¶ 10} The court of appeals held that mandamus would not lie because Martre had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law . Martre challenges this conclusion on three grounds. {¶ 11} First, he argues that he has already exhausted all the remedies available to him. But “[e]xhaustion of remedies is not a prere quisite to seeking a
writ of mandamus. To the contra ry, [t]his assertion establishe [s] that there were adequate remedies at law, maki ng mandamus relief unavailable.” State ex rel. Powe v. Lanzinger , 9th Dist. Summit No. 29373, 2019-Ohio-3086, ¶ 6. Thus, when a relator “has already unsuccessfully invoked * * * alternate r emedies, mandamus is not available to relitigate the same issue.” State ex rel. McDonald v. Mitrovich , 113 Ohio St.3d 167, 2007-Ohio-1258, 863 N.E.2d 172, ¶ 8. {¶ 12} Second, Martre suggests that it was improper for the court of a ppeals
to conclude that he ha d an adequate remedy at law in the face o f his allegation that he lacked an adequate remedy. However, unsupported legal concl usions, even when cast as factual assertions, are not presumed true for purp oses of a motion to
dismiss. Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. , 40 Ohio St.3d 190, 193, 532 N.E.2d 753 (1988). {¶ 13} Finally, Martre cites decisions of this court allowing parties to seek writs of mandamus to compel corrections to a trial record. See, e.g. , State ex rel.
Worcester v. Donnellon , 49 Ohio St.3d 117, 120, 551 N.E.2d 183 (1990) (granting writ of mandamus ordering trial court to correct its journal to reflect fact that continuance was not granted at relator’s request). But our mor e recent jurisprudence has clarified th at App.R. 9(E) provides an adequa te remedy forJanuary Term, 2020

5 correcting a record, thereby foreclosing mandamus relief. 2 State ex rel. Marshall
v. Glavas , 98 Ohio St.3d 297, 2003-Ohio-857, 784 N.E.2d 97, ¶ 6; see also State ex rel. Neff v. Corrigan , 75 Ohio St.3d 12, 17, 661 N.E.2d 170 (1996) (limiting
Worcester to its facts). {¶ 14} For these reasons, the court of appeals was correct to dismiss Martre’s complaint. Judgment affirmed.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and S TEWART , JJ., concur.

_________________ Derrick Martre, pro se. Juergen A. Waldick, Allen County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jana E. Emerick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

_________________

2. App.R. 9(E) sets forth a procedure for resolving certain dis putes concerning the appellate record and provides that “[a]ll other questions as to the form and con tent of the record shall be presented to the court of appeals.”