Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the denial of Vincent El Alan Parker Bey’s mandamus action seeking public records related to his criminal proceedings. The court held that the court of appeals properly applied R.C. 149.43(B)(8), which requires an incarcerated person to obtain the sentencing judge’s approval before obtaining public records relating to a criminal investigation or prosecution. The court also declined to reach challenges to an affidavit because the statutory violation independently supported denial of the writ.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court of appeals properly considered R.C. 149.43(B)(8) on remand as a bar to Parker Bey's public-records request.
- Whether the validity of an affidavit concerning the existence or prior production of requested records required reversal of the denial of mandamus relief.
Holdings
- The court of appeals properly considered R.C. 149.43(B)(8) on remand because Byrd had raised the issue before the first appeal and the Supreme Court had directed the court of appeals to determine Parker Bey's entitlement to relief under the Public Records Act.
- Parker Bey's failure to comply with R.C. 149.43(B)(8) was a valid and sufficient basis for denying the writ of mandamus.
Key quotations
“The requester must establish by clear and convincing evidence a clear legal right to the records and a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the public officer to provide them.” (¶ 9)
“The validity of Black’s affidavit is moot given that Parker Bey’s failure to comply with R.C. 149.43(B)(8) is a valid and sufficient basis for denying relief in mandamus.” (¶ 14)
Factual background
Parker Bey, an inmate at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center, sent two certified-mail records requests to Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts Nailah K. Byrd in September 2018. He sought journal entries from his 1995 criminal case and a records-retention schedule. Byrd did not respond to the first request and provided only one of the journal entries sought in the second; the record also indicated that other requested entries did not exist or had already been provided.
Procedural history
Parker Bey requested journal entries and a records-retention schedule relating to his 1995 criminal case. The court of appeals initially denied mandamus relief on the ground that the Rules of Superintendence, rather than the Public Records Act, governed the request. In Parker Bey I, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed that reasoning and remanded for consideration under the Public Records Act. On remand, the court of appeals again denied the writ, concluding that Parker Bey had not complied with R.C. 149.43(B)(8) and that some requested records had already been provided or did not exist. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.