[ Until this opinion appea rs in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Boler v. McCarthy , Slip Opinion No. 202 3

- 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.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2023

- O HIO - 500
T HE S TATE EX REL . B OLER , A PPELLANT , v . M C C ARTHY , J UDGE , A PPELLEE . [ Until this opinion appea rs in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Boler v. McCarthy , Slip Opinion No.
202 3

- 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. 202 2

- 1157

— Submitted January 10, 2023

— Decided February 23 , 202 3 .)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeal s for Athens County, No. 2 2CA12

.

__________________ 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 conviction s . The court of appeals dismisse d 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 hisS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 conviction s . Boler appeals the dismissal of his complaint. Because Boler had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, we affirm.
B ackground {¶ 2} In 2009, a jury found Boler guilty of aggravated robbery and complicity

to commit murder, both with firearm spec ifications. 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 conviction s must be vacated because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to, in his view, misconstr ue 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 misappl ied R.C. 2911.01 when he directly appealed his conviction s

. {¶ 4} Boler has appealed to this court as of right.
A nalysis {¶ 5} To dis miss 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 denialJanuary Term, 2023

3 of the writ would result in injury for which he lacks an adequ ate 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 re lief 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 cour t 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. Cuyahog a 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 misappli ed R.C. 2911.01 when he directly appealed his conviction s . T herefore, t he court of appeals correctly dismissed Bole r’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 i f 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

- m atter 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 Athlet ic Assn. v. Ruehlman , 157 Ohio St.3d 296,S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

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”). Bo ler therefore cannot avoid the lack

of

- adequate

- remedy requirement.
C onclusion {¶ 10} Because Boler had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, w e a ffirm the court of appeals’ judgment

. J udgment affirmed

. K ENNEDY , C.J., and F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , S TEWART , B RUNNER , and D ETERS , JJ., concur.

_________________ Phillip Dionte Boler , pro se. George P. McCarthy, Judge, pro se

.

_________________