State ex rel. Davenport v. State
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Ohio?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Ohio. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Appellant, an inmate, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging constitutional violations with regard to his conviction and requesting the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the propriety of the criminal proceedings brought against him. Appellant filed an affidavit of indigence requesting a waiver of fees and costs but failed to comply with the requirements of Ohio Rev. Code 2969.25(C)(1). The court of appeals’ magistrate recommended that the court dismiss the case for Appellant’s failure to satisfy the statutory requirements. The court of appeals accepted and adopted the magistrate’s decision and recommendation and dismissed the case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the case on the basis recommended by the magistrate.
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Davenport v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3430.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-3430 THE STATE EX REL. DAVENPORT, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Davenport v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-3430.] Mandamus—R.C. 2969.25(C)—Failure to document balance of inmate account for six months preceding filing of complaint—Court of appeals’ dismissal of complaint affirmed. (No. 2015-1578—Submitted March 8, 2016—Decided June 16, 2016.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 14AP-1043. ______________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} Relator-appellant, Carlos Davenport, is an inmate who filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Tenth District Court of Appeals alleging numerous constitutional violations with regard to his conviction and asking for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the propriety of the criminal SUPREME COURT OF OHIO proceedings brought against him. He filed an affidavit of indigency in the court of appeals that requested a waiver of fees and costs. However, he failed to provide a statement of the amount in his inmate account for each of the preceding six months, as required by R.C. 2969.25(C)(1), and he also failed to comply with other requirements of R.C. 2969.25. {¶ 2} The court of appeals’ magistrate recommended that the court dismiss the case for Davenport’s failure to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2969.25. Davenport filed objections, but the court of appeals accepted and adopted the magistrate’s decision and recommendation and dismissed the case. Davenport appealed. {¶ 3} The court of appeals was correct to dismiss the case on the basis recommended by the magistrate. “ ‘The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.’ ” Boles v. Knab, 129 Ohio St.3d 222, 2011-Ohio-2859, 951 N.E.2d 389, ¶ 1, quoting State ex rel. White v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5; State ex rel. McGrath v. McDonnell, 126 Ohio St.3d 511, 2010Ohio-4726, 935 N.E.2d 830, ¶ 1. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. {¶ 4} Davenport also filed a motion under S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07(B) for default judgment. He argues that because the state failed to file a brief, he is entitled to judgment in his favor. However, that rule states: If the appellee fails to file a merit brief within the time provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.03 or as extended in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 3.03, the Supreme Court may accept the appellant’s statement of facts and issues as correct and reverse the judgment if the appellant’s brief reasonably appears to sustain reversal. 2 January Term, 2016 (Emphasis added.) Here, Davenport’s brief does not reasonably appear to sustain reversal. Therefore, we deny the motion for default judgment. {¶ 5} Finally, Davenport filed a motion for oral argument. Oral argument in a direct appeal is discretionary. S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.02(A). None of the factors we normally consider in granting a motion for oral argument exists in this case. See State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh, 142 Ohio St.3d 384, 2014-Ohio-4563, 31 N.E.3d 608, ¶ 16, citing Appenzeller v. Miller, 136 Ohio St.3d 378, 2013-Ohio-3719, 996 N.E.2d 919, ¶ 4, and cases cited therein. We deny the motion for oral argument. Judgment affirmed and motion denied. O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. _________________ Carlos Davenport, pro se. _________________ 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
