Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the denial of Craig A. Cowan’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel a ruling on his motion to represent himself. The court held that Cowan had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law through an appeal, which generally precludes mandamus relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Cowan was entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling a ruling on his motion to represent himself.
- Whether Cowan had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law through an appeal.
Holdings
- Cowan had an adequate remedy through an available appeal because he had an opportunity to raise the self-representation issue in his direct appeal and could have further appealed the issue to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Key quotations
“To be entitled to extraordinary relief in mandamus, Cowan must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of the court of appeals to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” (¶ 7)
“In general, an available appeal is a remedy sufficient to preclude a writ of mandamus.” (¶ 9)
Factual background
Cowan was tried and convicted of several offenses in January 2012 and received a prison sentence. Before trial, he filed a motion to represent himself, but the trial court did not expressly rule on it. On direct appeal, his supplemental pro se brief raising the self-representation issue was stricken because it exceeded the court-ordered page limit, and he did not further appeal that issue to the Supreme Court of Ohio. He later sought mandamus relief to compel a ruling on the motion.
Procedural history
Cowan was convicted and sentenced after a criminal trial and pursued a direct appeal and multiple subsequent appeals. He filed a mandamus complaint in the Eighth District seeking to compel a ruling on his pretrial motion to represent himself. The Eighth District granted appellees' motion to dismiss, and the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.