[Cite as State v. Brooks, 2023-Ohio-1677.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Respondent, :

No. 112533

v. :

PATRICK T. BROOKS, :

Relator. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: COMPLAINT DISMISSED

DATED: May 12, 2023

Writ of Mandamus

Order No. 563967

Motion No. 563285

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for respondent.

Patrick T. Brooks, pro se.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

On March 21, 2023, the relator, Patrick T. Brooks, commenced a 

mandamus action that he captioned “State of Ohio v. Patrick T. Brooks.” The 
following is the wording of his complaint: 

Now comes Defendant, Patrick T. Brooks, in Pro se, seeking an Order 

from this Court to comply with the rules of Court when a Defendant file 

for "Notice of Appeal. Defendant filed an Appeal under Case No. CR17-624079-A last Dec. 14, 2022, which was filed by the Clerk of Courts, 

the Courts has refused to grant Defendant an Appeal of right, on his 

Motion under Crim R. 33(A), for a new trial due to Counsel's failure to 

investigate Defendant's case and file a Motion for a suppression 

hearing. The Plaintiff has stated that Defendant never filed a Motion in 

the Court, but has sent Defendant a bill for Court cost on Jan. 26, 2023, 

this the reason that Defendant is filing this Motion for an Order for the 

Court to take "Judicial Notice" due to the facts of this Complaint.

On March 31, 2023, the state of Ohio as respondent moved to dismiss on procedural 

deficiencies and failure to state a claim. Brooks filed his opposition on April 24, 

2023. For the following reasons, this court grants the motion to dismiss.

First, the petition is defective because it is improperly captioned. 

Brooks styled this petition as “State of Ohio v. Patrick T. Brooks.” R.C. 2731.04 

requires that an application for a writ of mandamus “must be by petition, in the 

name of the state on the relation of the person applying.” This failure to properly 

caption a mandamus action is sufficient grounds for denying the writ and dismissing 

the petition. Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty., 173 Ohio St. 226, 181 

N.E.2d 270 (1962). Moreover, the failure to caption the case correctly creates 

uncertainty as to the identity of the respondent. This court has held that this 

deficiency alone also warrants dismissal. State ex rel. Calloway v. Court of 

Common Pleas of Cuyahoga Cty., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 71699, 1997 Ohio App. 

LEXIS 79452 (Feb. 27, 1997); Jordan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas,

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96013, 2011-Ohio-1813. In the present case, this court is not 
certain whether the respondent is the state of Ohio, the prosecutor, the clerk of 

courts, the common pleas court, or this court of appeals. This makes it nearly 

impossible to discern the right and duty sought to be enforced.1

Brooks also did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which requires that 

an inmate file a certified statement from his prison cashier setting forth the balance 

in his private account for each of the preceding six months. This also is sufficient 

reason to deny the mandamus, deny indigency status, and assess costs against the 

relator. State ex rel. Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio St.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1507, 844 

N.E.2d 842; State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 88 Ohio 

St.3d 176, 724 N.E.2d 420 (2000); and Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22, 2011-

Ohio-4608, 955 N.E.2d 378 — the defect may not be cured by subsequent filings.

In his brief in opposition, Brooks argues that R.C. 2969.25 is 

inapplicable because he is in a private prison. However, the North Central 

Correctional Complex, which he identifies in his address, is a state correctional 

facility and the statute applies. Furthermore, his reliance on Lockley v. Lake Erie 

Corr. Inst., Ct. of Cl. No. 2005-09880-AD, 2005-Ohio-6815, is misplaced. That case 

concerns the liability of independent contractors with the state of Ohio and the 

jurisdiction of the court of claims. It never mentions R.C. 2969.25.

1 The requisites for mandamus are well established: (1) the relator must establish 

a clear legal right to the requested relief; (2) the respondent must have a clear legal duty 

to perform the requested relief; and (3) the relator has or had no adequate remedy at law. 

State ex rel. Tran v. McGrath, 78 Ohio St.3d 45, 676 N.E.2d 108 (1997).
It is difficult to discern what relief Brooks seeks. To the extent that he 

seeks an adjudication of an appeal he filed on December 14, 2022, State v. Brooks, 

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 112223, his claim is not well founded. This court notes that 

in the underlying case, State v. Brooks, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-17-624079-A, he 

pleaded guilty to seven counts of rape, three counts of gross sexual imposition, and 

three counts of kidnapping, and in August 2018, the trial court sentenced him to 30 

years in prison. On March 15, 2019, Brooks moved to withdraw his guilty plea, and 

the court denied that motion on March 25, 2019. Brooks moved for a new trial on 

October 1, 2021; he argued that his trial counsel took advantage of his disability and 

told him he would get only three years if he pled guilty and that his trial counsel did 

not interview exculpating witnesses. The trial court denied the motion on 

October 12, 2021. On July 15, 2022, Brooks moved for default judgment because the 

state had not replied to his motion for new trial; the trial court denied that on 

August 1, 2022. Claiming his right to appeal, Brooks filed the December 14, 2022 

notice of appeal on a decision rendered in July 2022. This court dismissed the 

appeal as untimely. Because the notice of appeal was untimely, this court cannot 

adjudicate it, nor can it issue an order for compliance with the rules. 

To the extent that Brooks might be seeking some other relief, such as 

vacating the costs of the appeal or ordering the clerk to recognize the existence of 

the appeal or some other pleading, the court in its discretion declines to issue a writ 

of mandamus. “If a relator has failed to present clearly the claims asserted and the 

relief requested, this court may enter judgment against the relator.” State v. Byrge,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92979, 2009-Ohio-4376, ¶ 2, and State v. Wynn, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 105205, 2017-Ohio-659. 

Accordingly, this court grants the motion to dismiss and dismisses 

this application for a writ of mandamus. Relator to pay cost. This court directs the 

clerk of courts to serve all parties notice of the judgment and its date of entry upon 

the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

Complaint dismissed.

_______________________

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and

LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR