Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Eighth District Court of Appeals' dismissal of an inmate's petition for a writ of procedendo against a trial judge. The court held that the inmate failed to strictly comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) because his submitted account statement lacked certification by the institutional cashier as required for waiving appellate filing fees. Consequently, the court declined to consider supplemental materials filed after the lower court proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the materials Martin submitted with his appellate petition strictly complied with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1)'s requirement that an inmate-account statement be certified by the institutional cashier.
- Whether noncompliance with R.C. 2969.25(C) is an affirmative defense that a respondent waives by failing to raise it in a responsive pleading.
- Whether the Supreme Court of Ohio could consider materials submitted for the first time on direct appeal.
Holdings
- The court would not consider materials that were not presented to the Eighth District because appellate review is generally confined to the record before the lower court.
- A respondent's argument that an inmate failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) is not an affirmative defense and is not waived merely because it was not asserted in a responsive pleading.
- An inmate seeking waiver of an appellate filing fee must strictly comply with R.C. 2969.25(C)(1) by submitting an account statement certified by the institutional cashier; a statement lacking any indication of certification or approval does not satisfy the statute.
Key quotations
“An inmate must strictly comply with R.C. 2969.25(C).” (¶ 10)
“Therefore, Martin failed to strictly comply with R.C. 2969.25(C).” (¶ 14)
Factual background
Martin, an inmate at Noble Correctional Institution, filed a petition for a writ of procedendo seeking to compel Judge McCormick to rule on Martin's petition for postconviction relief. Martin requested waiver of the appellate filing fee and submitted an affidavit of indigency with a six-month inmate-account statement. The statement did not indicate that it had been certified or approved by the institutional cashier.
Procedural history
Martin filed a petition for a writ of procedendo in the Eighth District seeking to compel Judge McCormick to rule on a postconviction-relief petition. He also sought waiver of the appellate filing fee and submitted an inmate-account statement that was not certified by the institutional cashier. The Eighth District granted McCormick's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the petition for failure to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C). The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.