[Cite as State ex rel. Marshall v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2013-Ohio-705.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 99114 

STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., 

CHARLES L. MARSHALL

RELATOR

vs. 

CUYAHOGA COUNTY 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

RESPONDENT 

JUDGMENT: 

WRIT DENIED 

Writ of Mandamus 

Motion No. 460958 

Order No. 462195 

RELEASE DATE: February 27, 2013 
ii

FOR RELATOR 

Charles L. Marshall, pro se 

Inmate No. 369-138 

Lebanon Correctional Institution 

P.O. Box 56 

Lebanon, Ohio 45036 

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: James E. Moss 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

Justice Center - 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
iii

KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.: 

{¶1} Charles L. Marshall, the relator, has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus. 

 Marshall seeks an order from this court that would require the Cuyahoga County Court 

of Common Pleas, the respondent, to issue rulings with regard to four motions as filed in 

State v. Marshall, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-349190-A. Specifically, Marshall seeks 

rulings with regard to the (1) motion to request a Crim.R. 52(B) evidentiary hearing, (2) 

motion for issuance of a subpoena for requested Crim.R. 52(B) evidentiary hearing, (3) 

motion for appointment of standby counsel, and (4) motion to disqualify counsel of 

record. For the following reasons, we grant the respondent’s motion for summary 

judgment and decline to issue a writ of mandamus on behalf of Marshall. 

{¶2} Initially, we find that Marshall’s complaint for a writ of mandamus is 

procedurally defective. Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) mandates that a complaint for an 

extraordinary writ must be supported by a sworn affidavit that specifies the details of 

Marshall’s claim. The failure of Marshall to comply with the supporting affidavit 

requirement of Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) requires the dismissal of the complaint for a writ 

of mandamus. State ex rel. Leon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 8th Dist. 

No. 92826, 2009-Ohio-1612, aff’d, 123 Ohio St.3d 124, 2009-Ohio-4688, 914 N.E.2d 

402. 

{¶3} Marshall has also failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which requires that 

an inmate, who files a complaint against a government entity or government employee, 
iv

must support the complaint with a statement that: (1) sets forth the balance in the inmate’s 

account for the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier; and (2) a 

statement that sets forth all other cash and items of value as owned by the inmate. The 

failure of Marshall to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) warrants dismissal of his complaint 

for a writ of mandamus. Martin v. Woods, 121 Ohio St.3d 609, 2009-Ohio-1928, 906 

N.E.2d 1113. 

{¶4} It must also be noted that Marshall has failed to comply with R.C. 

2969.25(A), which requires the attachment of an affidavit to the complaint for a writ of 

mandamus that describes each civil action or appeal filed within the previous five years in 

any state or federal court. State ex rel. Zanders v. Ohio Parole Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 421, 

1998-Ohio-218, 696 N.E.2d 594; State ex rel. Alford v. Winters, 80 Ohio St.3d 285, 

1997-Ohio-117, 685 N.E.2d 1242. 

{¶5} Finally, Marshall’s request for a writ of mandamus is moot. Attached to the 

respondent’s motion for summary judgment is a copy of a judgment entry, as journalized 

on December 13, 2012, that demonstrates rulings have been issued with regard to the (1) 

motion to request a Crim.R. 52(B) evidentiary hearing, (2) motion for issuance of a 

subpoena for requested Crim.R. 52(B) evidentiary hearing, (3) motion for appointment of 

standby counsel, and (4) motion to disqualify counsel of record. Thus, Marshall is not 

entitled to a writ of mandamus. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 

74 Ohio St.3d 278, 1996-Ohio-117, 658 N.E.2d 723; State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman, 6 
v

Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163 (1983). 

{¶6} Accordingly, we grant the respondent’s motion for summary judgment. 

Marshall to pay costs. The court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties with notice 

of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B). 

{¶7} Writ denied. 

__________________________________________ 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE 

PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J., and 

MELODY J. STEWART, A.J., CONCUR