The opinion
[Cite as State v. Brown, 2026-Ohio-949.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
: C.A. No. 30569
Appellee :
: Trial Court Case No. 2022 CR 01036
v. :
: (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas
CHRISTOPHER DEANGELO BROWN : Court)
:
Appellant : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY &
: OPINION
...........
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on March 20, 2026, the judgment of the
trial court is affirmed.
Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.
Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately
serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.
Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified
copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note
the service on the appellate docket.
For the court,
RONALD C. LEWIS, PRESIDING JUDGE
TUCKER, J., and EPLEY, J., concur.
OPINION
MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30569
CHRISTOPHER DEANGELO BROWN, Appellant, Pro Se
ANDREW T. FRENCH, Attorney for Appellee
LEWIS, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Christopher Deangelo Brown appeals from a judgment of
the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court that denied his public records request
pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(8). For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
I. Procedural History
{¶ 2} In August 2022, Brown was convicted of robbery, a felony of the second degree,
and sentenced to an indefinite mandatory minimum term of five years in prison to a maximum
of seven and one-half years. We affirmed Brown’s conviction. State v. Brown, 2023-Ohio-
645, ¶ 21 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 3} On January 28, 2025, Brown, an incarcerated inmate, filed a pro se motion
requesting public records pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(8). Brown sought information that
allegedly involved the investigation and prosecution of his criminal case. Brown sought the
requested public records solely to review the evidence, which “may help him find something
that could have been overlooked.”
{¶ 4} On May 14, 2025, Brown filed a motion asking the court to rule on his pending
motion. The trial court overruled Brown’s motion two days later.
{¶ 5} On August 7, 2025, Brown filed a notice of appeal and motion for leave to file a
delayed appeal stating that he did not receive the trial court’s May 16, 2025 decision. A
copy of the trial court’s decision was attached to Brown’s notice of appeal. We overruled
2
Brown’s motion for leave to appeal and ordered the parties to proceed in accordance with
the Rules of Appellate Procedure. As we explained, a defendant's postconviction public-
records request is civil in nature. State ex rel. Ware v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2024-
Ohio-47, ¶ 35 (10th Dist.). Although Brown’s notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days
of the order on appeal, the time in which to file a notice of appeal under App.R. 4(A)(1) is
“[s]ubject to the provisions of App.R. 4(A)(3)” in civil cases. App.R. 4(A)(3) “contains a
tolling provision that applies in civil matters when a judgment has not been properly served
on a party according to Civ.R. 58(B).” In re Anderson, 92 Ohio St.3d. 63, 67 (2001).
Because the trial court failed to direct the clerk of court to serve Brown with notice of the
judgment per Civ.R. 58(B), the time for filing had not yet begun. Therefore, Brown’s notice
of appeal was timely filed.
II. Public Records Request
{¶ 6} In his first assignment of error, Brown states:
TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING
APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR PUBLIC RECORDS, PURSUANT TO R.C.
149.43.
{¶ 7} We review trial court orders on disclosure of public records for an abuse of
discretion. State v. Morris, 2017-Ohio-1196, ¶ 29 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Atakpu, 2013-
Ohio-4392, ¶ 7 (2d Dist.). “A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes a decision that
is unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary.” State v. Darmond, 2013-Ohio-966, ¶ 34,
citing State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 (1980).
{¶ 8} “R.C. 149.43, the Public Records Act, requires public offices to make public
records in their custody available for inspection and to provide copies thereof upon request.”
Myers v. Myers, 2002-Ohio-6380, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.). However, where the records pertain to
3
public records concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution, “[t]he Public Records Act
imposes restrictions on the ability of an inmate to request records.” State ex rel. Ellis v.
Cleveland Police Forensic Laboratory, 2021-Ohio-4487, ¶ 13. Pursuant to
R.C. 149.43(B)(8):
A public office or person responsible for public records is not required to permit a
person who is incarcerated pursuant to a criminal conviction . . . to inspect or to obtain
a copy of any public record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution . . .
unless the request to inspect or to obtain a copy of the record is for the purpose of
acquiring information that is subject to release as a public record under this section
and the judge who imposed the sentence . . . with respect to the person, or the judge's
successor in office, finds that the information sought in the public record is necessary
to support what appears to be a justiciable claim of the person.
{¶ 9} “This statute ‘sets forth heightened requirements for inmates seeking public
records, and requires an incarcerated criminal defendant to demonstrate that the information
he is seeking pursuant to R.C. 149.43 is necessary to support a justiciable claim or
defense.’” State v. Carr, 2020-Ohio-42, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Gibson, 2007-Ohio-
7161, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.). Until the inmate demonstrates this, “he is not entitled to receive
records related to his criminal cases.” State ex rel. Adkins v. Cantrell, 2023-Ohio-1323,
¶ 26.
{¶ 10} “A ‘justiciable claim’ is a claim properly brought before a court of justice for
relief.” State v. Wilson, 2011-Ohio-4195, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.). This court has consistently held
that the justiciable claim requirement “ordinarily involves identifying a ‘pending proceeding
with respect to which the requested documents would be material.’” State v. Wilson, 2009-
Ohio-7035, ¶ 5 (2d Dist.), quoting Gibson at ¶ 14. At least one court has disagreed and
4
held that R.C. 149.43(B)(8) does not require a justiciable claim to be pending, only that the
inmate has a justiciable claim to be advanced. See State v. Askew, 2017-Ohio-1512, ¶ 12
(11th Dist.). Nevertheless, Askew still requires a defendant to allege a justiciable claim in
the public records request and identify how the evidence being sought is necessary to
advance such claim. Id. at ¶ 13.
{¶ 11} In his public records request, Brown did not identify any pending proceedings
or any proceeding likely to have been instituted to which the requested documents would
have been material to support a justiciable claim. Further, Brown made no argument below
about why the requested information, if it existed at all, was necessary to support a
justiciable claim. The trial court concluded that it could not discern any justiciable claim.
“A trial court does not abuse its discretion when it denies a motion under R.C. 149.43(B)(8)
made by a person who has not demonstrated that he has a justiciable claim or that the public
records he seeks are necessary to support such a claim.” Carr, 2019-Ohio-3802, at ¶ 21
(2d Dist.), citing State v. Reid, 2012-Ohio-1659, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 12} Because Brown has not demonstrated that he has a justiciable claim or that
the public records he sought were necessary to support that claim, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion when it overruled Brown’s motion. Brown’s first assignment of error is
overruled.
III. Due Process
{¶ 13} Brown’s second assignment of error states:
APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE [SIC] IN VIOLATION OF THE 14TH
AMENDANT [SIC] OF U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 16
OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
5
{¶ 14} Brown contends that the trial court’s delay in deciding his motion unduly
delayed his appeal, which violated his due process rights. We disagree.
{¶ 15} “The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, as applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides: ‘No
person shall * * * be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’” In re
Thompkins, 2007-Ohio-5238, ¶ 12. “Our courts have long recognized that due process
requires both notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Id. at ¶ 13.
{¶ 16} Brown filed his motion requesting public records on January 28, 2025. The
State did not file a response. On May 14, 2025, Brown filed a motion asking the court to
rule on his pending motion. Two days later, the trial court overruled Brown’s public records
request. Brown argues he was prejudiced in that had the trial court timely ruled on his
motion, he would not have had to waste time and resources. “Prejudice” is defined as
“[d]amage or detriment to one's legal rights or claims.” Black’s Law Dictionary (12th Ed.
2024). We cannot conclude that the trial court’s three-and-one-half month delay in
rendering a decision was unreasonable or caused any detriment to Brown’s legal rights or
claims.
{¶ 17} Nor can we conclude that the failure to timely serve Brown with the trial court’s
May 16, 2025 order pursuant to Civ.R. 58(B) resulted in any due process violation. While
the right to file an appeal is considered a property interest, and “a litigant may not be deprived
of that interest without due process of law,” Brown was not deprived of his right to file an
appeal. Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp., 37 Ohio St.3d 80 (1988), paragraph one of the
syllabus. Brown filed a notice of appeal on August 7, 2025, and attached a copy of the trial
court’s order. We deemed the appeal timely filed. Brown therefore was provided notice
6
and an opportunity to be heard in both the trial court and this court. Accordingly, Brown’s
second assignment of error is overruled.
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 18} Having overruled Brown’s assignments of error, the judgment of the trial court
is affirmed.
.............
TUCKER, J., and EPLEY, J., concur.
7