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

ex rel. Rohrer v. Holzapfel, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-7827.] 

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. 2016-OHIO-7827

THE STATE EX REL. ROHRER, APPELLANT, v. HOLZAPFEL, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 

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

may be cited as State ex rel. Rohrer v. Holzapfel, Slip Opinion No. 

2016-Ohio-7827.] 

Mandamus and procedendo—Case is moot and does not fall under mootness 

exception for issues capable of repetition yet evading review—Court of 

appeals’ dismissal of petition affirmed. 

(No. 2016-0304—Submitted August 16, 2016—Decided November 22, 2016.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 15CA3508. 

_____________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} We affirm the Fourth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the 

petition for writs of mandamus and procedendo filed by appellant, John J. Rohrer. 

{¶ 2} The case is moot, because the stay placed on consideration of Rohrer’s 

2015 motion has been lifted and the trial court is considering it. Moreover, the case 

does not meet the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to mootness. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Facts and Procedural History 

{¶ 3} Rohrer was the defendant in a criminal case in which he was found 

not guilty of felonious assault by reason of insanity and was also found to be a 

“mentally ill person subject to hospitalization by court order.” Multiple hearings 

have been conducted over the years regarding Rohrer’s continued commitment. 

{¶ 4} In 2014, Rohrer filed a motion (the “2014 motion”) asserting that the 

trial court lacked authority to order his original commitment in 2010 because he 

was not a “mentally ill person subject to court order” within the meaning of R.C. 

2945.40. After holding a hearing, the trial court found that Rohrer continued to be 

mentally ill and subject to court-ordered hospitalization. Rohrer appealed the trial 

court’s ruling to the court of appeals. 

{¶ 5} In March 2015, nearly six months after the hearing on the 2014 

motion, Rohrer filed a motion to terminate his involuntary confinement (the “2015 

motion”), based on his contention that he was no longer mentally ill. Rohrer 

contends that he is not and has not been mentally ill, at least since the time that his 

forced medication ended. 

{¶ 6} In July 2015, more than 120 days after he filed the 2015 motion, 

Rohrer filed a motion for default judgment. After holding a hearing on the defaultjudgment motion in September 2015, the court issued an order declaring that the 

issues raised in the 2015 motion were the same issues raised in Rohrer’s appeal 

from the denial of the 2014 motion and stayed the action pending the outcome of 

that appeal. 

{¶ 7} On October 7, 2015, Rohrer filed in the court of appeals a petition for 

writs of mandamus and procedendo, requesting that appellee, Judge Leonard 

Holzapfel of the Court of Common Pleas of Ross County, be ordered to either grant 

or hold a hearing on the 2015 motion. While Rohrer continues to question the trial 

court’s jurisdiction over his original case, he argues that the 2015 motion was based 

exclusively on his mental status after the September 2014 hearing. He claims that 
January Term, 2016 

3

the stay imposed on the appeal of the 2014 motion violated his right to a hearing 

on the conditions of his confinement every six months as required under R.C. 

2945.401(C) and (J)(1)(a) and 2945.40. He also claims that the hearing should be 

conducted before a jury, in his presence, and on the record. 

{¶ 8} The court of appeals ultimately affirmed the trial court’s denial of the 

2014 motion, State v. Rohrer, 2015-Ohio-5333, 54 N.E.3d 654 (4th Dist.), and we 

declined jurisdiction, 145 Ohio St.3d 1459, 2016-Ohio-2807, 49 N.E.3d 321. 

{¶ 9} In February 2016, the court of appeals dismissed Rohrer’s petition for 

writs of mandamus and procedendo. The court determined that Rohrer’s request 

for a writ of procedendo was arguably moot, because its judgment affirming the 

trial court’s denial of the 2014 motion had acted to terminate Judge Holzapfel’s 

stay of consideration of the 2015 motion. The court of appeals further determined 

that the issue raised in the case was capable of repetition yet evading review; 

therefore, the court considered the merits of Rohrer’s petition. Ultimately 

concluding that Judge Holzapfel had not abused his discretion in issuing the stay, 

the court denied the requested writs. Rohrer appealed. 

Analysis

Mootness 

{¶ 10} In a motion filed July 5, 2016, Rohrer argues that the case is not moot 

for two reasons. First, he asserts that Judge Holzapfel “continue[s] to refuse to 

rule” on his motion for a default judgment or to provide the requested hearing on 

the 2015 motion. Second, he argues that the issue of Judge Holzapfel’s 

“interference” with Rohrer’s asserted right to a hearing will arise again if Rohrer 

appeals future rulings while also attempting to exercise his rights to periodic 

reviews of his mental status and of the conditions of his confinement under R.C. 

2945.401(C). 

{¶ 11} Rohrer’s first contention is belied by the docket, which shows the 

following. Shortly after we declined jurisdiction of Rohrer’s appeal challenging 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

the trial court’s denial of the 2014 motion, Judge Holzapfel scheduled a hearing on 

the 2015 motion. On September 9, 2016, the trial court ordered that Rohrer be 

evaluated in order to determine whether his commitment should continue. On 

September 22, the court scheduled a “commitment review” hearing for November 

4. This case is therefore moot, because the court is acting on the 2015 motion, 

which is exactly the result that Rohrer sought in his petition. 

{¶ 12} Rohrer’s second contention is based on his rights under R.C. 

2945.401(C). Under that statute, Rohrer has the right to a biannual review of his 

continued commitment, and every six months he may also request an evaluation of 

the conditions of his confinement: 

The * * * institution, facility, or program to which a defendant * * 

* has been committed under section * * * 2945.40 of the Revised 

Code shall report in writing to the trial court * * * as to whether the 

defendant * * * remains a mentally ill person subject to court order 

* * *. The * * * institution, facility, or program shall make the 

reports after the initial six months of treatment and every two years

after the initial report is made. The trial court shall provide copies 

of the reports to the prosecutor and to the counsel for the defendant 

or person. Within thirty days after its receipt pursuant to this 

division of a report * * * the trial court shall hold a hearing on the 

continued commitment of the defendant * * * or on any changes in 

the conditions of the commitment of the defendant * * *. The 

defendant * * * may request a change in the conditions of 

confinement, and the trial court shall conduct a hearing on that 

request if six months or more have elapsed since the most recent 

hearing was conducted under this section. 

 
January Term, 2016 

5

(Emphasis added.) R.C. 2945.401(C). In other words, Rohrer has the right to a 

biannual assessment of his status as a mentally ill person. According to the court 

of appeals, this is what occurred at hearings in September 2014 and forms part of 

the basis of the appeal to the Fourth District in State v. Rohrer, 2015-Ohio-5333, 

54 N.E.3d 654, at ¶ 2. That appeal was the reason given by Judge Holzapfel for the 

stay of consideration of the 2015 motion. 

{¶ 13} If Judge Holzapfel’s stay of Rohrer’s action based on the 2015 

motion pending appeal of the denial of the 2014 motion interfered with either of his 

rights under R.C. 2945.401(C), then Rohrer would have an argument that the issue 

in this case is capable of repetition yet evading review. Below, the court of appeals 

noted that although Rohrer has the statutory right to request every six months a 

change in the conditions of his confinement, Judge Holzapfel could impose a stay 

after each request as long as an appeal of the denial of any previous such motion, 

or an appeal of a biannual assessment of mental status, was pending. Because 

Rohrer is entitled to a six-month review of the conditions of his confinement 

regardless of whether any other motions are on appeal, the court below reasoned, 

this case is capable of repetition yet evading review. 

{¶ 14} While this hypothetical scenario is possible, the 2015 motion does 

not implicate either of Rohrer’s rights under R.C. 2945.401(C). Rather, the trial 

court conducted a biannual review of Rohrer’s continued commitment in 

September 2014. The only request he could make after that was for a six-month 

review of the conditions of his confinement. These are distinct issues, as illustrated 

by the separate burdens of proof for each set forth in R.C. 2945.401(G)(1) and (2). 

{¶ 15} The 2015 motion does not request a change in the conditions of 

Rohrer’s confinement. Rather, it requests Rohrer’s unconditional release based on 

his assertion that he no longer meets the definition of a mentally ill person and is 

therefore not subject to hospitalization by court order. In support of this assertion, 

Rohrer offers arguments virtually identical to those made in his appeal of the denial 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

of the 2014 motion, except that he includes the time period from September 2014 

until he filed the 2015 motion. 

{¶ 16} The 2015 motion does not fall under either the mandatory biannual 

review or the review of the conditions of confinement allowed every six months 

under R.C. 2945.401(C). Therefore, by staying consideration of the 2015 motion 

pending appeal of the 2014 biannual review, Judge Holzapfel did not interfere with 

Rohrer’s statutory rights to a biannual review of his mental status or to a six-month 

review of the conditions of his confinement. 

{¶ 17} Because the case is moot and—contrary to the determination of the 

court of appeals—does not fall under the mootness exception for issues capable of 

repetition yet evading review, we affirm that court’s judgment, though on different 

grounds. 

Conclusion

{¶ 18} This case is moot, because the stay placed on consideration of the 

2015 motion has been lifted and Judge Holzapfel is considering it. The case does 

not meet the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to mootness, 

because the trial court’s failure to consider the 2015 motion earlier did not violate 

Rohrer’s statutory rights to periodic review of his mental status and of the 

conditions of his confinement. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals on 

these grounds. 

Judgment affirmed 

and motion denied. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and

O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

O’DONNELL, J., concurs in judgment only. 

_________________ 

Fitrakis & Gaddell-Newton, L.L.C., Robert J. Fitrakis, and David L. 

Kastner, for appellant. 
January Term, 2016 

7

_________________