[Cite as Staats v. Ferrero,

.]

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

GARY CYRIL STAATS : JUDGES: : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Relator, : Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. -vs- : : JOHN D. FERRERO, Prosecuting Attorney : Case No. 2015CA00173 : and : : JOSEPH E. VANCE, Assistant Prosecuting : Attorney : : Respondents, : OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus

JUDGMENT: Dismissed

DATE OF JUDGMENT: June 30, 2016

APPEARANCES:

For Relator For Relator

GARY CYRIL STAATS JOHN D. FERRERO Inmate No. 661-652 Prosecuting Attorney Richland Correctional P.O. Box 8107 By: RENEE M. WATSON Mansfield, Ohio 44901 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 110 Central Plaza, South Suite 510 Canton, Ohio 44901 Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00173 2

Baldwin, J.

{¶1} Relator, Gary Cyril Staats, has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus and

Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus requesting Respondents be ordered to provide

Relator with copies of certain documents. The Petition and Amended Petition are

disjointed and difficult to understand. No clear claims are set forth. Respondents have

filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

{¶2} From what the Court can glean, Relator claims Respondents

inappropriately marked five witness statements as “counsel only” to avoid having to

disclose them to Relator. Relator appears to argue the statements should be turned over

to him pursuant to Crim.R. 16, and he also alleges the statements should have been

disclosed pursuant to the Public Records Act.

{¶3} “To be entitled to extraordinary relief in mandamus, [a relator] must

establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of

[respondent] to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of

the law. State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth,

,

,

, ¶ 6. An [a]ppeal is generally considered an adequate remedy sufficient to preclude

a writ of mandamus. Shoop v. State,

,

,

, citing State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm.,

,

(1967), paragraph three of the syllabus.” State ex rel. Bradford v. Dinkelacker, 2016-

Ohio-2916, ¶¶ 5-6 (Ohio).

{¶4} “[T]o the extent . . . there [are alleged] errors in the discovery process, the

proper remedy for such matters is appeal. State ex rel. Daggett v. Gessaman, 34 Ohio Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00173 3

St.2d 55,

(1973).” State ex rel. Harrison v. McGinty, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 103865,

, ¶ 4.

{¶5} Any allegation that Crim.R. 16 was violated should have been raised upon

direct appeal. Because an adequate remedy at law exists or existed, mandamus will not

issue for a claimed violation of Crim.R. 16.

{¶6} We now will consider Relator’s contention that Respondents violated the

Public Records Act. According to the trial court docket, Relator was convicted on October

9, 2014 and was sentenced to a period of six years in prison. Pursuant to the Petition,

Relator avers he made his request for the “discovery” on May 14, 2015. Therefore,

Relator was incarcerated at the time of the request.

{¶7} “R.C. 149.43(B)(8) requires an incarcerated criminal offender

who seeks records relating to an inmate's criminal prosecution to obtain a finding by the

sentencing judge or the judge's successor that the requested information is necessary

to support what appears to be a justiciable claim.” State ex rel. Fernbach v. Brush,

, 2012–Ohio–4214,

, citing State ex rel. Chatfield v.

Flautt,

, 2012–Ohio–1294,

.

{¶8} Because Relator failed to obtain approval for a public records request, he

cannot demonstrate he has or had a clear legal right to any public records. In so holding,

we have not determined the records sought are public records. We have not proceeded

to examine the issue as to whether witness statements are public records. Rather, we

find Relator cannot make any claim based upon a public records request without first

obtaining approval from the sentencing judge to make a public records request. Stark County, Case No. 2015CA00173 4

{¶9} For these reasons, the writ of mandamus will not issue, and the complaint

is dismissed.

By: Baldwin, J.

Hoffman, P.J. and

Delaney, J. concur.