State ex rel. Love v. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office
Ohio
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2022State v. Jones Ohio Ct. App.
- 2022State v. Thompson Ohio Ct. App.
- 2021State v. Taylor Ohio Ct. App.
- 2020State v. Maxwell Ohio Ct. App.
- 2020State v. Sowell Ohio Ct. App.
- 2019State v. Obermiller Ohio Ct. App.
- 2019State v. Phelan Ohio Ct. App.
- 2019State v. Adams Ohio Ct. App.
- 2018State v. Littlepage Ohio Ct. App.
- 2018State v. Owensby Ohio Ct. App.
Cites 4 cases
- State ex rel. Kuczak v. Saffold
- State v. Spirko
- State ex rel. Flagner v. Arko
- State ex rel. Libecap v. Industrial Commission
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
The State ex rel. Love, Appellant, v. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office et al., Appellees.
Judges
- Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Attorneys
- Edsel Love, pro se.
- William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Diane Smilanick, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.
Love asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ. For the following reasons, Love’s contentions lack merit.
As the court of appeals concluded, Love cited no authority entitling him to the requested records. A writ of mandamus will not be issued to compel the general observance of unspecified laws. See, e.g., State ex rel. Kuczak v. Saffold (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 123, 125, 616 N.E.2d 230, 232. In fact, there is no requirement of civil discovery in postconviction proceedings. See State v. Spirko (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 421, 429, 713 N.E.2d 60, 65, discretionary appeal not allowed (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 1430, 699 N.E.2d 946; State v. White (June 16, 1999), Summit App. No. 394938, unreported, 1999 WL 394938.
In addition, Love is not entitled to the requested records under the Crim.R. 16 criminal discovery provisions because his criminal trial concluded long before his requests. State ex rel. Flagner v. Arko (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 176, 177, 699 N.E.2d 62, 63; Crim.R. 16(D).
Finally, Love disclaimed any right to relief under R.C. 149.43. Flagner, 83 Ohio St.3d at 177, 699 N.E.2d at 63.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.