[Cite as State v. Collins, 2022-Ohio-3046.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

CITY OF WESTLAKE,

Respondent, :

No. 111501

v. :

CARL A. COLLINS, JR., :

Relator. :

________________________________________

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: COMPLAINT DISMISSED

DATED: August 26, 2022

________________________________________

Writ of Mandamus

Motion No. 556106

Order No. 557352

_______________________________________

Appearances:

Michael P. Maloney, Westlake Director of Law, and John 

J. Spellacy, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for

respondent. 

Carl A. Collins, Jr., pro se. 

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J.:

Carl A. Collins, the relator, has filed a complaint for a writ of 

mandamus. Collins seeks an order from this court that requires the city of Westlake, 

the respondent, to issue a ruling with regard to a motion for dismissal based upon a 
speedy trial violation in Rocky River M.C. No. 17-TRC-07964. The city of Westlake 

has filed a motion to dismiss that is granted for the following reasons. Disposition 

of the complaint for mandamus is based upon procedural defects contained in the 

complaint and a substantive review of the complaint for mandamus.

 I. Procedural Defects

A. Failure to comply with Civ.R. 10(A)

Initially, we find that the complaint for a writ of mandamus is 

improperly captioned. Collins has failed to comply with Civ.R. 10(A), which requires 

that the complaint must include the addresses of all parties. Bandy v. Villanueva, 

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96866, 2011-Ohio-4831; Clarke v. McFaul, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 89447, 2007-Ohio-2520. 

B. Improper Caption

We also find that Collins’s complaint is defective because it is 

improperly captioned. Collins styled this action as “State of Ohio, City of Westlake 

v. Carl A. Collins, Jr.” Pursuant to R.C. 2731.04, a complaint for a writ of mandamus 

must be brought in the name of the state on relation of the person applying for the 

original action. Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 139, 2005-Ohio5795, 841 N.E.2d 766; State ex rel. Simms v. Sutula, 81 Ohio St.3d 110, 689 N.E.2d 

564 (1998); Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty., 173 Ohio St. 226, 181 

N.E.2d 270 (1962). Despite the aforesaid procedural defects, a substantive review 

of the complaint for mandamus fails to demonstrate the existence of any legal basis 

for this court to issue a writ of mandamus.
II. Mandamus Requirements and Analysis

A. Standards for Granting a Writ of Mandamus

The complaint for a writ of mandamus fails to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted. In order for this court to issue a writ of mandamus, 

Collins must demonstrate: (1) that Collins possesses a clear legal right to the relief 

prayed for, (2) that the city of Westlake possess a clear legal duty to perform the 

requested act, and (3) that there exists no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary 

course of the law. State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 451 N.E.2d 

225 (1983); State ex rel. Westchester Estates, Inc. v. Bacon, 61 Ohio St.2d 42, 399 

N.E.2d 81 (1980); State ex rel. Heller v. Miller, 61 Ohio St.2d 6, 399 N.E.2d 66 

(1980); State ex rel. Harris v. Rhodes, 54 Ohio St.2d 41, 374 N.E.2d 641 (1978)

B. Failure to Establish Claim for Mandamus

A thorough review of the complaint for mandamus fails to reveal that 

Collins has established a clear legal right or that the city of Westlake possesses any 

legal duty to rule on any motions. State ex rel. Dreamer v. Mason, 115 Ohio St.3d 

190, 2007-Ohio-4789, 874 N.E.2d 510; State ex rel. Woods v. Gagliardo, 49 Ohio 

St.2d 196, 360 N.E.2d 705 (1977). 

C. Application of Doctrine of Res Judicata 

In addition, the doctrine of res judicata operates to preclude the 

relitigation of a point of law or fact that was at issue in a former action between the 

same parties and was passed upon by a court of competent jurisdiction. State ex rel. 

Kroger Co. v. Indus. Comm., 80 Ohio St.3d 649, 651, 687 N.E.2d 768 (1998); Office 
of Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Com., 16 Ohio St.3d 9, 10, 475 N.E.2d 782 

(1985). Herein, Collins possessed an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the 

law through an appeal. Collins did file an appeal in which the issue of speedy trial 

was addressed: 

In the seventh assignment of error, Collins argues his right to a 

speedy trial was violated. 

R.C. 2945.71(B)(2) provides that a defendant charged on a firstdegree misdemeanor must be brought to trial within 90 days after 

arrest or service of summons. The statutory speedy trial period begins 

to run on the date the defendant is arrested, although the date of arrest 

is not counted when calculating speedy trial time. State v. Wells, 8th 

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98388, 2013-Ohio-3722, ¶ 44. If the defendant is 

not arrested for the offense, speedy trial time begins on the day he is 

served with the indictment. State v. Pirkel, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

93305, 2010-Ohio-1858, ¶ 12. 

Speedy trial time may, however, be tolled by certain events 

delineated in R.C. 2945.72. These events include: delay “necessitated 

by the accused’s lack of counsel”; delay “necessitated by reason of a plea 

in bar or abatement, motion, proceeding, or action made or instituted 

by the accused, and any continuances granted upon the accused’s own 

motion”; the “period of any continuance granted on the accused’s own 

motion” as well as the period of “any reasonable continuance granted”

upon any other party’s motion; and the time during which an appeal is 

pending. R.C. 2945.72(C), (E), (H), and (I). 

In addition, a defendant’s demand for discovery tolls the speedy 

trial time until the state responds to the discovery, or for a reasonable 

time, whichever is sooner. State v. Burks, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 

106639, 2018-Ohio-4777, citing State v. Shabazz, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga 

No. 95021, 2011-Ohio-2260, ¶ 26, 31; R.C. 2945.72(E). This court has 

interpreted a “reasonable response time” to mean 30 days. See 

Shabazz at ¶ 26. However, what is reasonable or necessary is 

determined on a case-by-case basis. Pirkel at ¶ 17, citing State v. 

Saffell, 35 Ohio St.3d 90, 518 N.E.2d 934 (1988). 

In the instant case, the record indicates Collins was arrested on 

December 2, 2017. The record also indicates that on January 30, 2018, 
all parties agreed to a trial date of February 28, 2018, and Collins was 

in fact brought to trial on that date. The record also indicates that 

Collins filed his demand for discovery on December 29, 2017, which 

tolled the speedy trial time until January 9, 2018, when the city of 

Westlake responded. 

By our calculation, without deducting the days that were tolled 

as a result of Collins’s demand for discovery, he was brought to trial two 

days prior to the expiration of 90 days. As a result, Collins’s right to a 

speedy trial was not violated. 

Collins contends he should be awarded three days for each day 

he was incarcerated. However, Collins has misinterpreted R.C. 

2945.72(E), which provides that each day a defendant is held in jail on 

a pending charge shall be counted as three days towards the requisite 

speedy trial time. This statute applies only to defendants held in jail in 

lieu of bail solely on the pending charge. State v. Butler, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 85366, 2005-Ohio-4122, citing State v. Martin, 56 Ohio 

St.2d 207, 383 N.E.2d 585 (1978), citing State v. MacDonald, 48 Ohio 

St.2d 66, 357 N.E.2d 40 (1976). 

Here, Collins was in jail on a probation violation, in a separate 

case, which bears no relationship to the pending charge. Therefore, his 

reliance on R.C. 2945.72(E) is misplaced. Accordingly, the seventh 

assignment of error is overruled.

Westlake v. Collins, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106968, 2019-Ohio-453, ¶ 15-22. 

The doctrine of res judicata bars Collins from maintaining his 

mandamus action based upon a claim of lack of speedy trial in Rocky River 

M.C. No. 17-TRC-07964. State ex rel. Kendrick v. Parker, 160 Ohio St.3d 448, 

2020-Ohio-1509, 158 N.E.3d 573; State ex rel. Phelps v. McClelland, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 108021, 2019-Ohio 2448; State ex rel. McNamara v. Rittman, 9th 

Dist. Wayne No. 08CA0011, 2009-Ohio-911.
Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss. Costs to Collins. The 

court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties with notice of this judgment and 

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

Complaint dismissed. 

_________________________

EMANUELLA D. GROVES, JUDGE

ANITA LASTER MAYS, P.J., and

MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR