[Cite as In re Smith, 2018-Ohio-448.]

STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

SEVENTH DISTRICT 

IN RE: ) CASE NO.17 MA 0162 

) 

JOHN A. SMITH. ) 

) 

 ) OPINION AND 

) JUDGMENT ENTRY 

 ) 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Writ of Mandamus 

JUDGMENT: Dismissed. 

APPEARANCES: 

For Relator: John A. Smith, pro se

54878-060 

U.S. Penitentiary 

Canaan 

P.O. Box 300 

Waymart, Pennsylvania 18472 

For Respondent: Atty. Dana Lantz 

City Prosecutor 

City of Youngstown Law Department 

Atty. Jeffrey Moliterno 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

26 South Phelps Street 

Youngstown, Ohio 44503 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Carol Ann Robb 

Hon. Gene Donofrio 

Hon. Cheryl L. Waite 

Dated: January 30, 2018
[Cite as In re Smith, 2018-Ohio-448.]

PER CURIAM. 

{¶1} Relator John A. Smith, a federal prison inmate at United States 

Penitentiary, Canaan, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to 

have this Court direct Respondent Youngstown Municipal Court Judge Elizabeth 

Kobly to provide him a prompt and final disposition of the charges pending against 

him in that court. Respondent, represented by the City of Youngstown’s Prosecutor’s 

Office, has filed an “objection” to Relator’s petition, arguing that he is not entitled to 

the relief sought. 

{¶2} In October 2014, Relator was charged in Respondent’s court with loud 

sound devices prohibited and driving under an OVI suspension, both first-degree 

misdemeanors. He pled not guilty. At a pre-trial that occurred a month later, he 

waived all statutory time limits for trial and Respondent, at his request, reset the 

matter for a pretrial on January 12, 2015. Meanwhile, according to Relator’s petition, 

he was arrested by federal law enforcement authorities in December 2014 and 

remains incarcerated in United States Penitentiary, Canaan, which is located in 

Waymart, Pennsylvania. (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 

https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/caa/, accessed December 21, 2017). 

{¶3} Relator failed to appear for the January 12, 2015 pretrial and 

Respondent issued an arrest warrant for Relator. A year later, Relator filed a pro se 

motion to set aside the warrant arguing it was in violation of the Interstate Agreement 

on Detainers Act. In the alternative, he requested Relator accept his guilty plea in 

absentia. Respondent denied the motion. Relator’s attorney then filed a motion to 

withdraw the arrest warrant and reset the matter for a pretrial and Respondent denied 

that motion as well. 

{¶4} On November 14, 2017, Relator filed a pro se motion in Respondent’s 

court requesting a disposition of the charges pending against him. Respondent 

denied the motion that same day and Relator filed the present petition for a writ of 

mandamus which is the subject of this original action. Relator also appealed to this 

Court Respondent’s November 14, 2017 decision denying his motion which remains 

pending as a direct appeal under our appellate jurisdiction in case no. 17 MA 0171. 
-2-

{¶5} A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which should be 

exercised with caution and issued only when the right is clear. State ex rel. Brown v. 

Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Elections, 142 Ohio St.3d 370, 2014-Ohio-4022, 31 N.E.3d 

596, ¶ 11. Entitlement to a writ of mandamus requires the relator to demonstrate: (1) 

they have a clear legal right to the relief, (2) the respondent has a clear legal duty to 

provide that relief, and (3) they have no adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. 

Taxpayers for Westerville Schools v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 133 Ohio St.3d 

153, 2012-Ohio-4267, 976 N.E.2d 890, ¶ 12. 

{¶6} In this instance, Relator has available to him two adequate remedies at 

law. First, the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act provides when a person is 

subject to criminal charges in this state yet is imprisoned out of state, they may seek 

to be brought to trial within 180 days following the delivery of written notice to the 

appropriate trial court and prosecutor’s office accompanied by “a certificate of the 

appropriate official having custody of the prisoner, stating the term of commitment 

under which the prisoner is being held, the time already served, the time remaining to 

be served on the sentence, the amount of good time earned, the time of parole 

eligibility of the prisoner, and any decisions of the state parole agency relating to the 

prisoner.” R.C. 2963.30, Article III(a). Article III(b) requires the prisoner to send 

written notice requesting final disposition to the “warden, commissioner of corrections 

or other official having custody of him.” This official is then required to send written 

notice to the appropriate locations along with a report listing the information in Article 

III(a). 

{¶7} Second, Relator filed a motion in Respondent’s court requesting a 

disposition of the charges pending against him, which it denied and is the subject of a 

direct appeal before this Court in case no. 17 MA 0171 

{¶8} Accordingly, Relator’s complaint for a writ of mandamus is dismissed. 

Costs taxed against Relator. Final order. Clerk to serve copies of this decision and 

judgment entry pursuant to the civil rules. 
-3-

Robb, P.J., concurs. 

Donofrio, J., concurs. 

Waite, J., concurs