State ex rel. Garrison v. Brown

[Cite as State ex rel. Garrison v. Brown, 2026-Ohio-278.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State ex rel. Carlos Q. Garrison, :

Relator, : No. 25AP-566

v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR)

Judge Richard Brown, :

Respondent. :

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on January 29, 2026

On brief: Carlos Q. Garrison, pro se.

On brief: Shayla D. Favor, Prosecuting Attorney, and

Patrick A. Stevens, for respondent.

IN MANDAMUS

ON RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

JAMISON, J.

{¶ 1} Relator, Carlos Q. Garrison, has filed a mandamus action against respondent,

Judge Richard Brown (“Judge Brown”). Garrison requests this court issue a writ of

mandamus ordering Judge Brown to dismiss his pending case for alleged speedy-trial

violations, lack of a preliminary hearing, and further states that he is eligible for release

from detention based upon the alleged violation of his speedy-trial rights and lack of a

timely preliminary hearing. Judge Brown has filed a motion to dismiss Garrison’s petition.

{¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals,

this court referred this matter to a magistrate. The magistrate issued the appended

decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law. The magistrate recommended

that we grant Judge Brown’s motion to dismiss Garrison’s amended petition for writ of

mandamus filed on August 22, 2025. After issuance of the decision, neither party filed

objections to the magistrate’s decision.

No. 25AP-566 2

{¶ 3} “If no timely objections are filed, the court may adopt a magistrate’s decision,

unless it determines that there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the

magistrate’s decision.” Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(c).

{¶ 4} Upon review of the record and the law, we have found no error in the

magistrate’s findings of fact or conclusions of law. Therefore, we adopt the magistrate’s

decision in its entirety. In accordance with that decision, we grant Judge Brown’s motion

to dismiss Garrison’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

Motion to dismiss granted;

action dismissed.

BOGGS, P.J., and DINGUS, J., concur.

No. 25AP-566 3

APPENDIX

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State ex rel. Carlos Q. Garrison, :

Relator, :

v. : No. 25AP-566

Judge Richard Brown, : (REGULAR CALENDAR)

Respondent. :

MAGISTRATE’ S DECISION

Rendered on September 30, 2025

Carlos Q. Garrison, pro se.

Shayla D. Favor, Prosecuting Attorney, and Patrick A.

Stevens, for respondent.

IN MANDAMUS

ON RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

{¶ 5} Relator, Carlos Q. Garrison, has filed this original action seeking a writ of

mandamus ordering respondent, Judge Richard Brown, to immediately dismiss all charges

and discharge relator from custody. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss.

Findings of Fact:

{¶ 6} 1. Relator is an inmate at Franklin County Corrections Center.

{¶ 7} 2. Respondent is a public official serving as a judge in the Franklin County

Common Pleas Court, in Columbus, Ohio.

No. 25AP-566 4

{¶ 8} 3. Respondent presides over Franklin C.P. No. 22 CR 3647, a pending

criminal case in which relator is the defendant.

{¶ 9} 4. According to relator’s petition for writ of mandamus filed in this court,

relator filed a motion to dismiss for speedy trial violations and lack of preliminary hearing

in his criminal case. He alleges, citing various statutes, that he is eligible for release from

detention and dismissal of the charges based upon the violation of his speedy-trial rights

and lack of a timely preliminary hearing. Relator alleges that respondent has blatantly

ignored his constitutional and statutory rights by not bringing him to trial in a timely

manner, resulting in his being forced to take a place or go to trial when time for trial has

expired.

{¶ 10} 5. On July 8, 2025, relator filed his petition for writ of mandamus in this

court.

{¶ 11} 6. On August 6, 2025, respondent filed a motion to dismiss, in part based

upon relator’s ’s failure to include a prayer for relief in the petition.

{¶ 12} 7. On August 19, 2025, relator filed a motion for leave to file amended

complaint and amended complaint, adding a prayer for relief but otherwise raising the

same allegations as the original complaint. In the amended complaint, relator prays for a

writ of mandamus ordering respondent to immediately dismiss all charges and discharge

relator from custody. The magistrate grants the motion for leave to file amended complaint.

{¶ 13} 8. On August 22, 2025, relator filed a motion to dismiss the amended

petition, raising the same arguments as raised in the original motion to dismiss, except for

the argument pertaining to the lack of a prayer for relief. Relator filed a reply brief, and

respondent filed a brief in response.

Conclusions of Law:

{¶ 14} For the reasons that follow, it is the magistrate’s decision that this court

should grant respondent’s August 22, 2025, motion to dismiss relator’s amended petition

for writ of mandamus.

{¶ 15} In order for this court to issue a writ of mandamus, a relator must ordinarily

show a clear legal right to the relief sought, a clear legal duty on the part of the respondent

to provide such relief, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967).

No. 25AP-566 5

{¶ 16} A court may dismiss a complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) if, after all

factual allegations in the complaint are presumed true and all reasonable inferences are

made in relator’s favor, it appears beyond doubt that relator could prove no set of facts

entitling him or her to the requested extraordinary writ. State ex rel. Turner v. Houk, 2007-

Ohio-814, ¶ 5. “Although factual allegations in the complaint are taken as true,

‘unsupported conclusions of a complaint are not considered admitted . . . and are not

sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.’ ” Justice v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins., 1998 Ohio

App. LEXIS 6250, (10th Dist. Dec. 24, 1998), quoting State ex rel. Hickman v. Capots, 45

Ohio St.3d 324 (1989).

{¶ 17} A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is procedural and tests the

sufficiency of the complaint itself and any attached documents. State ex rel. Hanson v.

Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 1992-Ohio-73, citing Assn. for the Defense of the

Washington Local School Dist. v. Kiger, 42 Ohio St.3d 116, 117 (1989). Attachments to the

complaint are considered part of the complaint for all purposes. Civ.R. 10(C). Generally, in

ruling on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion, a court “ ‘cannot resort to evidence outside the

complaint to support dismissal [except] where certain written instruments are attached to

the complaint.’ ” Brisk v. Draf Indus., 2012-Ohio-1311, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.), quoting Park v.

Acierno, 2005-Ohio-1332, ¶ 29 (7th Dist.); see also Myers v. Vandermark, 2024-Ohio-

3205, ¶ 20 (7th Dist.) (finding that when a plaintiff relays information in a complaint and

in attachments, that information can be held against the plaintiff in ruling on a Civ.R.

12(B)(6) motion).

{¶ 18} The magistrate may take judicial notice of the pleadings and orders in related

cases when these are not subject to reasonable dispute, at least insofar as they affect the

present original action. State ex rel. Nyamusevya v. Hawkins, 2020-Ohio-2690, ¶ 33 (10th

Dist.), citing Evid.R. 201(B); State ex rel. Ohio Republican Party v. Fitzgerald, 2015-Ohio-

5056, ¶ 18; and State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 2011-Ohio-229, ¶ 8. Furthermore, a court

may take judicial notice of pleadings that are readily accessible on the internet. See

Draughon v. Jenkins, 2016-Ohio-5364, ¶ 26 (4th Dist.), citing State ex rel. Everhart v.

McIntosh, 2007-Ohio-4798, ¶ 8, 10 (a court may take judicial notice of appropriate matters,

including judicial opinions and public records accessible from the internet, in determining

a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion); and Giannelli, 1 Baldwin’s Ohio Practice Evidence, Section 201.6

No. 25AP-566 6

(3d Ed.2015) (noting that the rule generally precluding a court from taking judicial notice

of other cases has been relaxed if the record is accessible on the internet).

{¶ 19} In the present case, relator alleges in his petition that he is eligible for release

from detention and dismissal of the charges based upon the violation of his speedy-trial

rights and lack of a timely preliminary hearing. Relator alleges that respondent has

blatantly ignored his constitutional and statutory rights by not bringing him to trial in a

timely manner, resulting in his being forced to take a place or go to trial when time for trial

has expired.

{¶ 20} After presuming all factual allegations in the complaint are true and all

reasonable inferences are made in relator’s favor, the magistrate finds that it appears

beyond doubt that relator can prove no set of facts entitling him to the requested writ of

mandamus. As pointed out by respondent in his motion to dismiss, speedy-trial violations

are not cognizable in extraordinary-writ proceedings because they can be raised on direct

appeal. State ex rel. Justice v. Ohio, 2023-Ohio-760, ¶ 10; State ex rel. Dix v. Angelotta, 18

Ohio St.3d 115, 115-16 (1985) (mandamus may not be used as a substitute for direct appeal

to enforce the right to a speedy trial). See also Jackson v. Wilson, 2003-Ohio-6112 (finding

that a claim of lack of speedy trial can only be addressed through a direct appeal). Likewise,

because claims of violation of a defendant’s speedy trial rights are the proper subject of an

appeal, they constitute an adequate remedy precluding relief in mandamus. State ex rel.

Jackim v. Ambrose, 2008-Ohio-3182, ¶ 6. Furthermore, insofar as relator also claims

statutory and constitutional violations, such are also not cognizable in mandamus

proceedings. Martin v. Judges of the Lucas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 50 Ohio St.3d 71,

71-72 (1990) (various violations of constitutional and statutory rights have no remedy in

mandamus). Therefore, relator cannot demonstrate that he has a clear legal right to relief

in mandamus or that he lacks an adequate remedy at law.

{¶ 21} Accordingly, the magistrate recommends that this court grant relator’s

motion to amend his complaint and grant respondent’s August 22, 2025, motion to dismiss

relator’s amended petition for writ of mandamus. All other pending motions are denied.

/S/ MAGISTRATE

THOMAS W. SCHOLL III

No. 25AP-566 7

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(iii) provides that a party shall not assign as

error on appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or

legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a

finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R.

53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically objects

to that factual finding or legal conclusion as required by Civ.R.

53(D)(3)(b). A party may file written objections to the

magistrate’s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the

decision.