Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The STATE ex rel. HAWK, Appellant, v. ATHENS COUNTY, Appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an inmate's petition for a writ of mandamus.
{¶ 2} In January 2001, appellant, Gary W. Hawk, was convicted of two counts of rape and sentenced to prison.
{¶ 3} In January 2005, Hawk filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Athens County, to vacate his sentence. Hawk claimed that his sentence violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. Hawk's petition did not include an affidavit containing a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action he had filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court, as required by R.C. 2969.25(A). Also, although Hawk claimed to be indigent, he did not include in his affidavit the statements required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1), setting forth the balance in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as certified by his prison cashier, and the value of all other items of value owned by the inmate.
{¶ 4} On March 2, 2005, the court of appeals dismissed the petition for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25.
{¶ 5} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. “ ‘The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate's action to dismissal.’ ” State ex rel. Norris v. Giavasis, 100 Ohio St.3d 371, 2003-Ohio-6609, 800 N.E.2d 365, ¶ 4, quoting State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5.
{¶ 6} Moreover, Hawk's double-jeopardy claim is not cognizable in mandamus. State ex rel. Dix v. McAllister (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 107, 108, 689 N.E.2d 561; Wenzel v. Enright (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 63, 66, 623 N.E.2d 69.
Judgment affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'CONNOR, O'DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 2005-0524.
Decided: September 07, 2005
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)