[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

ex rel. Mobley v. Bates, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-2827.]

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.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2024-OHIO-2827

THE STATE EX REL. MOBLEY v. BATES, PROS. ATTY.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State ex rel. Mobley v. Bates, Slip Opinion No. 

2024-Ohio-2827.]

Mandamus—Public-records requests—Because public-records custodian provided 

requested records, offered to provide records upon prepayment of copying 

costs, or averred that requested records do not exist, public office satisfied 

its obligations under R.C. 149.43—Requester failed to prove by clear and 

convincing evidence that he delivered public-records requests by certified 

mail—Writ, statutory damages, and court costs denied.

(No. 2023-1594—Submitted May 7, 2024—Decided July 30, 2024.)

IN MANDAMUS.

__________________

The per curiam opinion below was joined by KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER,

DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, and DETERS, JJ.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Relator, Alphonso Mobley Jr., filed an original action in mandamus 

against respondent, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney Julia Bates (“the 

prosecutor” or “the prosecutor’s office”). Mobley seeks the production of public 

records and awards of statutory damages and court costs. We deny the writ and 

decline to award Mobley statutory damages or court costs.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

{¶ 2} Mobley alleges that on October 30, 2023, the prosecutor received a 

public-records request that Mobley had sent to the prosecutor by certified mail. The 

record does not contain a copy of the request, but Mobley states that he sought in 

the request paper copies of the prosecutor’s (1) “[r]ecords retention schedule,” 

(2) “[c]ertified statements for years 2016-2021 pursuant to R.C. 309.16,” and 

(3) “[c]ashbook[s] for years 2016-2021 pursuant to R.C. 2335.25.” Mobley did not 

receive a response from the prosecutor regarding his request prior to his filing this 

mandamus action.

{¶ 3} Mobley filed this mandamus action on December 14, 2023, and the 

prosecutor was served with the complaint on December 19. On January 5, 2024, 

the prosecutor’s office sent Mobley a letter. In that letter, the prosecutor’s office 

stated that it had no record of having received Mobley’s request but that it was 

providing a response to the request described in Mobley’s complaint. In response 

to Mobley’s request for the prosecutor’s office’s “[r]ecords retention schedule,” the 

prosecutor’s office provided Mobley with a copy of the office’s records-retention 

schedule. In response to Mobley’s request for certified statements, the prosecutor’s 

office stated that the records responsive to that request might total nearly 10,000 

pages and that a paper copy of the records would cost approximately $1,000. The 

prosecutor’s office asked Mobley to inform it as to whether he still wanted paper 

copies of those records. And in response to Mobley’s request for “[c]ashbook[s],”

the prosecutor’s office stated that it did not have cashbooks for the years requested.
January Term, 2024

3

{¶ 4} The prosecutor filed an answer to Mobley’s mandamus complaint, 

and this court issued an alternative writ allowing the parties to submit evidence and 

ordering them to submit briefs, 2024-Ohio-597. As part of its evidence, the 

prosecutor’s office submitted an affidavit of an assistant prosecutor. The assistant 

prosecutor avers that all public-records requests made to the prosecutor’s office are 

forwarded to him. He avers that he never received the public-records request at 

issue in this case and that the prosecutor’s office has no record of having received

it. Mobley submitted as evidence a certified-mail return receipt for a mailing 

addressed to the prosecutor’s office that was delivered and signed for on 

October 30, 2023. The signature of the person who accepted the delivery is 

illegible. Mobley avers that this receipt was for the mailing of his public-records 

request. Mobley has not submitted a copy of the request or an envelope with a 

tracking number matching the tracking number on the receipt.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Writ of mandamus

{¶ 5} “[U]pon request by any person, a public office or person responsible 

for public records shall make copies of the requested public record available to the 

requester at cost and within a reasonable period of time.” R.C. 149.43(B)(1). 

Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to compel compliance with R.C. 149.43(B). 

R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b). To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Mobley must prove, 

by clear and convincing evidence, that he has a clear legal right to the relief sought 

and that the prosecutor has a clear legal duty to provide that relief. State ex rel. 

Cincinnati Enquirer v. Sage, 2015-Ohio-974, ¶ 10.

{¶ 6} Mobley argues that the prosecutor has not properly responded to his 

requests for certified statements and cashbooks and requests a writ of mandamus 

ordering the production of those records. We deny the writ. The prosecutor’s office 

avers that it never received Mobley’s public-records request. But even if the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

prosecutor received the request and failed to respond to it by the time Mobley filed 

this action, the prosecutor has since properly responded to the request.

{¶ 7} Mobley states that in his request for certified statements, he requested 

“[c]ertified statements for years 2016-2021 pursuant to R.C. 309.16.” Former 

R.C. 309.16, Am.Sub.S.B. No. 98, 138 Ohio Laws, Part I, 683, which has been 

repealed, required prosecutors to file annual statements regarding criminal 

prosecutions with the applicable board of county commissioners and, with respect 

to arson offenses, with the state fire marshal. In its January 5, 2024 letter to Mobley

regarding his public-records request, the prosecutor’s office told Mobley that paper 

copies of the statements to the board of county commissioners would cost 

approximately $1,000 and asked Mobley to advise the office whether he wanted to 

proceed with the request. Mobley did not respond to that instruction.

{¶ 8} A public office may charge for copies of public records at cost. See 

R.C. 149.43(B)(6). In his brief, Mobley suggests that he requested statements sent 

to the state fire marshal in addition to statements sent to the board of county 

commissioners and that the prosecutor did not provide the statements that were sent 

to the state fire marshal or an estimate of the cost to provide them. The prosecutor 

clarifies in her brief, however, that the same statements were sent to both the board 

of county commissioners and the state fire marshal. Because the prosecutor 

properly required payment of the copying costs before providing the statements, we

deny the writ as to the request for certified statements.

{¶ 9} Mobley states that in his request for cashbooks, he sought 

“[c]ashbook[s] for years 2016-2021 pursuant to R.C. 2335.25.” R.C. 2335.25 

requires prosecutors to keep a cashbook containing a record of all moneys that they 

collect or receive and that the cashbook “shall be a public record of the office.” The 

prosecutor’s office told Mobley—and it avers here—that it does not have any

cashbooks or other records responsive to the request. Mobley argues that the 

prosecutor’s office’s assertion that it does not have responsive records is 
January Term, 2024

5

contradicted by the office’s records-retention schedule, which contains a records 

schedule titled “Cash Books & Journals” and similarly titled schedules. But the 

existence of a particular records schedule at a public office does not necessarily 

mean that the public office has records encompassed by that schedule. And here, 

the prosecutor denies having any records responsive to Mobley’s request for 

cashbooks. Mobley has the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that 

the records he requested exist. See State ex rel. Cordell v. Paden, 2019-Ohio-1216, 

¶ 8. He has not done so, and the prosecutor has “no duty to create or provide access 

to nonexistent records,” State ex rel. Lanham v. Smith, 2007-Ohio-609, ¶ 15. 

Therefore, we deny the writ as to the request for cashbooks.

{¶ 10} Because the prosecutor has now either provided the requested 

records, offered to provide Mobley with the records upon prepayment of the 

copying costs, or averred that the records do not exist, we deny the writ.

B. Statutory damages and court costs

{¶ 11} “Statutory damages shall be awarded if a requester of public records 

transmits a written request to a public office by hand delivery, electronic 

submission, or certified mail and the public office or person responsible for public 

records fails to comply with its obligations under R.C. 149.43(B).” State ex rel. 

Atakpu v. Shuler, 2023-Ohio-2266, ¶ 13; accord R.C. 149.43(C)(2).

{¶ 12} Mobley argues that he is entitled to statutory damages because the 

prosecutor did not respond to his public-records request within a reasonable time. 

A public office shall provide copies of a requested public record “within a 

reasonable period of time.” R.C. 149.43(B)(1). Mobley alleges that the prosecutor 

received his public-records request on October 30, 2023, and the prosecutor did not 

respond to the request until January 5, 2024—67 days later.

{¶ 13} The prosecutor’s office, however, avers that it never received the 

public-records request. As evidence that he had sent the request to the prosecutor’s 

office by certified mail, Mobley submitted a copy of a certified-mail return receipt 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

that may have been signed for by someone from the prosecutor’s office on 

October 30 and his own affidavit averring that he sent the request by certified mail. 

Mobley, however, did not submit a copy of the public-records request. He also did 

not submit a copy of the envelope that the records request was mailed in. Because 

he did not submit a copy of the envelope, we cannot confirm that the certified-mail 

return receipt contains the same tracking number as that on the envelope.

{¶ 14} “[W]hen the evidence on the method-of-delivery of a public-records 

request consists of contradictory affidavits or is inconclusive, the requester has not 

satisfied his burden under R.C. 149.43(C)(2).” State ex rel. Ware v. Galonski, 

2024-Ohio-1064, ¶ 22; see also State ex rel. Ware v. Giavasis, 2020-Ohio-5453, 

¶ 32 (holding that when the evidence concerning delivery of a public-records 

request is evenly balanced, the requester has not satisfied the heightened burden of 

proof necessary for an award of statutory damages). Here, Mobley submitted as 

evidence a certified-mail return receipt. But other than his own affidavit, which the 

prosecutor disputes, Mobley has submitted no evidence linking the receipt to a 

public-records request.

{¶ 15} This court recently addressed a similar situation in Galonski. In that 

case, the relator averred that he had sent a public-records request by certified mail 

and submitted a certified-mail return receipt as evidence, but the respondent denied 

ever receiving the request. Galonski at ¶ 12, 16-17. This court determined that the 

relator had not proved by clear and convincing evidence that he had delivered the 

request by certified mail. Id. at ¶ 22. To be sure, in Galonksi, this court cited 

another case in which a public office had denied receiving public-records requests 

from the relator in Galonski. Id. at ¶ 21, citing Giavasis at ¶ 32-34. But in

Galonksi, the relator also submitted as evidence a copy of the public-records 

request, see id. at ¶ 32 (Kennedy, C.J., dissenting), which Mobley has not done 

here. We conclude that Mobley, having provided even less evidence than that 

provided by the relator in Galonksi, has not proved by clear and convincing 
January Term, 2024

7

evidence that he transmitted his public-records request by certified mail. And 

because he has not done so, we decline to award statutory damages.

{¶ 16} Mobley also requests an award of court costs. Court costs shall be 

awarded if “the court orders the public office or the person responsible for the 

public record to comply with [R.C. 149.43(B)].” R.C. 149.43(C)(3)(a)(i). Because 

we deny the writ, we also decline to award court costs. In addition, Mobley filed 

an affidavit of indigency, so he has not incurred court costs.

III. CONCLUSION

{¶ 17} Because the prosecutor’s office has now either provided the records 

requested by Mobley, offered to provide Mobley with the records upon prepayment 

of the copying costs, or averred that the records do not exist, we deny Mobley’s

request for a writ of mandamus. We also decline to award Mobley statutory 

damages or court costs.

Writ denied.

_________________

Alphonso Mobley Jr., pro se.

Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and John A. Borell,

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

_________________