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.] BROWN, Appellant, v. SUMMIT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Appellee.
{¶ 1} On January 27, 2003, appellant, Lee Shawn P. Brown, filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Summit County for a writ of mandamus. Brown sought the writ to compel appellee, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, to grant him jail-time credit for the days he spent at a community-based correctional facility. On January 30, 2003, the common pleas court concluded that Brown was entitled to 183 days credit for the time served in the Summit County Jail. In February 2003, the court of appeals dismissed the complaint.
{¶ 2} For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Brown's mandamus complaint.
{¶ 3} Brown failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C). With his complaint, Brown filed an affidavit that attempted to comply with R.C. 2969.21 et seq., but he did not file the certified statement of his prison cashier setting forth the balance in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, which was required by R.C. 2969.25(C). “The certified statement of the prison cashier required by R.C. 2969.25(C) concerning [Brown's] inmate account would have allowed [Brown] to support his bare, conclusory assertion that he was indigent.” State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 176, 177-178, 724 N.E.2d 420.
{¶ 4} Moreover, Brown had an adequate remedy at law by appeal to raise any error by the trial court in calculating his jail-time credit. State ex rel. Jones v. O'Connor (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 426, 704 N.E.2d 1223; R.C. 2731.05.
{¶ 5} Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.1
Judgment affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. We deny appellee's motion to strike appellant's brief. See, e.g., State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 70, 72, 765 N.E.2d 356, fn. 1 (“judicial review in Ohio favors resolution of cases on their merits”).
PER CURIAM.
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, SR., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O'CONNOR and O'DONNELL, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 2003-0530.
Decided: August 20, 2003
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)