Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
:T ®F flHIO
STATE OP OHIO, eC rel. {.3,"Q S'WA2N, CASE m .
Relator,
vs.
I91"R.tCT COVRm OF APP^`^Samo,
PE'FITItlN FM WRIT OF 23AMAMUS
;+OCJRt €3F APt'F.,MS FORf. OHIO
800 Jacksext StreetToles7o, OH 43624
CLERK AF CQURTSUPREME COURT QF.QHIO
ORIGINAL
11-1185
JUL 1`1 201i
CLERK OF COURTSUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN.. R`fOF013I0
STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. SEAN SWAIN, CASE NO.
Relator, An Original Action in Writ ofMandamis
vs.
THE SIM DISTRICT COURT OF APPMSFOR ERIE G , OHIOt
R .n ent.
. TITION FOR WRIT OF MA2IDAMFSS
Relator sew ,, in propria per: seeking issuance of a Writ
of Mandamus lin5 Respondent Sixth District Court of Appeals for Erie
Coauaty, Ohio to petfom a cl ear legal duty to issue ju t upon Relator's
g pleadinp filed February 24, 2011 in Erie 0o ty Case Numb E-95®011.
Relator
1. Relator Sean Swain is an adult citizen of the United States imprisoried in
the State of Ohio since 1991, currently confined at Mansfield CorrectiOnal
a state facility, in mawfield, itiohland Gou<tty, Ohio.
$eC
2. Respondentdent Sixth District Court of Ap s for Erie Co unty, Ohio is an
inferior court to the Supreme Court of Ohio established by the Ohio Constitution
and situated in Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio.
LeMl-Claims
-3. Eelator Sean Sssa^m; ^as W-cleara^ r^t'y` o^^^o D^ ^^', EesPo ent_
Sixth District Court of A. s to wit: the rendering of judgment upon Relator's
pending qaleadings filed Febrnary 24, 2011 in E-95®011, a duty that
Respondent has not p f. ®
4. Relator Sean swain has no plain mid adequate r in the ordinary
course of law in which to cm performance of tlais clear legal duty.
22. ,. .t s Facts
5. Relator filed on February 24, 2011, "Ap .1l .t's Request for Leave
Pursuant to App. R. 14(B) to Seek En ®mReconsideration After the .iratiomm of
the Proscribed Showing of Ectra. . . Gir, es," attached as
Exhibit A. aad, "Appellant's Request for Fha Banc Reconsideration Pursuant to App.
R. 26(A)(2)," attached as h bit B.
6. Res, .. . t has not provided ` t after more than one hundred (100)
days, exceeding the reason ..1e time for disposition of such matters.
CO ICiN
WHEREFORE, ba . e... u . . the foregoing, Relator Sean
issuance of awrit of mandamus against Respo. .t.
prays for the
Respeetfuliy sub tted,
Seffi! Swaint RelatorPrispn Reg. A243°205MI
P.O. .7nsfield, 13R 44901
VERIFICATIONiJnder penalty of perjury, the foregoing
a correct to the best of my
kwwldge belief.
Sean ,Rlator
. ef 79 204.
^o Q: ••,@( ^i.: ^; I/ ^''•.°C^^ JOHN O
1-1 e+ BABAJIDE=*F^ = NOTARYPUBLIC•
STATEOFOH10° ^ ^: My Conuniasionr!,^ :, yh \ ,. ; EXpueB
Mb ,.• ay 01.2818
^^^uqu OF 2
SrXTH I`,ISTRICT coUP7' OF 4PPFA^.'^
4:;3 tsun tA.?tTi:W„ OH1°;
APPELLANT s i E'.,UEsi: F"'3IRRECONSI;aE.;A'I'I.ON A:MZE12 T":"r..; E
fo:. Appellee
ERIE ioUNI"Z a''.'^'US^'^ C`247 Ca1cmbus AvenueSandusky, Ohio 44870
SRNN SiAIiSPrison Rea A243 205
^„^JUt;T CC APPF_ S CASE NO u `l5 01
gz" 10 ae ^1 R„ 14(B) TO SEEia ]TIBE.) T.IVE C1?O,q A SCES
I
f R LUNe aUsa UKAG P APs'a^ ,'a O^ t tIkqsgy±Ex *^y'°€a'An
y b^:q...rc
nea' 13n wTS::a.'.
::.'^ls dea.EnC'AF:,i:Se
Fs t' e «. a €; i: tall9:
z_^^^-ioy
>rat 3.ora
E;o
_U.°;^ e aTcd ra:.iafi.ak
State !:aa3
@ #^21..i°2
A;^^v.zt,i^^ ^pplita; io:s c^f Y^400
xe*_^.oactivie^.y i^tax. `va^^i0:
WYr^. 3610 See OISO ^-T()hRWZ
53 ...iSr irA:M
uaYo- fixrotf:t' [:1.L3we1:p1:eta"*+ti:fI!} U
4;.4YtSa t ""
31:t° l'r.&.3. TtT
y as 4^c;:? l
N°;d a. 4
I`,°tJ A
164 Ohio 5
f 715N 109'_<
85 orr.:o St 3d 175, 1.27, T;57 A:.
^.'^ r... ( 1`if82) 1 "3 .",:.o St iC,3. 94
62. f;: 713C"ae:':i:.a.b"'t'
1° etL'C; `i °`e^>t1'vl^
1.ka^',; L'
_iJzi ^ast:-,40
swe31.3 i a"+ te+.3.w'vIr3y t.LC3ai.Ii1€? ]e"2c
tiia.v applicarion was made necessary on3:y lt)y this Court
^n the presteeti= of i:ilp- cortt^^I I :a.ng pr,e-c.a(
ait<, 112 cilic, nqg. EXI 413 i1996^ . do:^.:^^€^
tr.ai„ 4aµe. Auv, to deny Stair, leave naw t
C3u xet7ic'SiiS l}' ,
YS`s csGaT."L"'Ld3gti= c)1`.
the criminal
to provide for t3.C7S2 Et'i 'v
si.aistrat i
'.'1. gmu.+.Y's.Gn°tvYi:"""C: .,,.'id '1Jr.:.C-'nt
tidr{SL7g.1'..:i coL5v3.aMio
prva>ar .ty
j51`CYit61gaue.
CY
n af L 3.l'C}.
e expiration t;+iL`S'se P3'G.:+C.';1°2.7c<
?.:i tihi? Cts°?2S''v.^7..,t"£tSr)Ce t9i
daprie^ SWIsk tnc nrcate
C?vid^.'.:.i#:iE?TV i1Ea'a`z"I3,,n i,Ci p:L'P_sfiu
"i,t'6?`I of fi.'StaC'ri"innf'-d law
aan rcq..i`s._ would rwsulc.
arrie".e. 477 t.s S. 47u- 495;
162. 109 :>4^.t 1038 1L"1$3
iished in State
k prior tc,
a1,4,°!.1':26x;r
s:
t':°'a^,Callx3.d@. [;=i
A true
Avo
e a ry;
grantirg him 3:cave to i
; i.atr v Sec:r3i Su<1Er:,
rec ,. Case
212
e.zttatwA ol $i;
CERTZ:°ICXT OF SERVZf;Fas served on tb1."12. CCâit83t.'J Pros
610 LlaY of ^^^^$t'^^--^•^ 201 d 'Li"
r:4 413
&ppl3.Ca}:ioi7 for
247 i,ci.i.iRyt'. ;titi.;:a^' l.j , S Mc"t].l.
In thc. County of Riehlwnd })_
Iri the Alleged State of Ohi^^
a^;^y sworn according t..e, law, €iereby deposes 2.G
I was wrongfully aorvv-ictc-d of Aggravated Murder on Dc-cember 4, 1991. Mywrongful conviction was reversed October 29, 1993. Prior to re6trial,, I filed aMotion to Suppress Any f^on®^ecorded Statements Ab%.egeally Made by the ^coused toPolice Officers, September 9, 1994. On November 16, 1994, >iagistrat^ GeorgeHowe3 ls ra^wd upon tl-Lis motiorn, He is^uie:^ no findings of i:ac-t nor conclusions ofI ^^ 4^^ t4- court's ^^^iew .
I was timreafter re-convicted and appealed Ty wtongful. conviction. Afterbriefs were filed ^^ oral arguments hiid, and ^n..ile my appeaL was
the -ot of appeals ^.^i^.e€ Thesof a ^^^^^ p .. rs^^.^^t ^^112 t31aLo, App. 3d 413 (July 12p E9036). In ^.^
.of Ohio v aj SmithSer ,. .
case, a motion to suppress to Magistrate G^rg^.^rs^r^I^s9 ^^ issued no fia^3iips of fact nor e.^za^4.^.us^,ons of 12^ g^r the trial.,.cour'm•.`s review. Ve m^, lst of appeals held tksat magistrates ar>A wataiout authorityto rule upsar. motions to suppress ara-i bar-ause of the irregular prusczss employed,it anoun¢ed to preiard^c-ial, error
I was identically-situated to the appellant in i,^.s^ sr^^.tt°=. ET^aes^ ^r case wasdecided ca^ze week later, the co^srt. of ap^°,^ls° ;aa^ s ^at^ k1ings were notapplied to my case I was denied the protection ot esta ... a preQeeRen
^T IANI` r^ M SAYETH KAUGHr .
n Paul ^^aiPrison ReBL A243-205. CTP.O. Box 788Mfens^ield, Indian Territory
44901
arsd sut^^^ribed befor^ me; a Notary PubIk, Lhis^
PRY P I I A1
BABAJ DENOTARYPUBLIC,STATE OF OHIO
` My CommissionExpires
'!, /ih . ^^• : May31,2011
^STqt^iOF^^^`
rw-.day or rieave®Der:cvkv
aft
JOHHO.BABAJ DE^;' -^ ^- : ; I
S NOTARY PUBLIC,3TATECFOHIO
My CommissionExpsr.s
AIFF?ANT V"^^^TMR S
'•:'sTVr en•;: ` Msy31,2011'°•...°.°°°:°.
fiu iird
.E S/1^.a'.
i7:i^r LTSI'R1^ I' ,t ^JXd" ^^t-Y, UH20
IR rt, S
f:3f TR.z::^
9.)^ $ iE".4te^ssT4 ...Ah L.?e"'_ it
II.mT"s '?,F?£,'tIES'T ioi?, 1-?:^ ?w^G;^' ^.^:cfj"^s>Zi);pr4Tloid YE3i;SJ,vu
Counsel for ='Lrrpe3.3.ee i
EqIE C.WN'tN' PR{7Sr:G;UiOP247 t c ?.^nims Avenue»rsdusky $ Ohio 4/4870
p
^C.P
tLyx'
^
SEAN SWAIN CF1^Prison Reg A243 -205
^
^ ' LJTMANCI
Pm1;5.CL7 .y--aG
2 0, lior 768O^do 44902
TA2i:; CY
sMC nF:CTSi(3N IN S3'A'I?+, V. SWA7ts1 CY3Lc'E'LIG'IS WI',P^ ^€$G t.[e I3AMttKJJeass.s.u°a:...^3fa^rA`I`E V S: ,. .
G SIC^??S'' '' iS LYnakir ^IIRI[7y
112 C3ai.a App. 3d 413ted, Case No.ted. Case No. E-95-01
TFiLp C'3F AUIfiOR
mzrLrRddE.'.]3 v. 4lev,
-T)f t
State V S4mal 'Sukit
State v. S ws^^U73it^i ^j^:^fit?:i of
C1=.^:J"' 90
. .
S. Ut, R. ;Rzp. Cp. Q)utl3.lalLit "e
t1he Factsthe Issues Presented for R
t^ ^e Case 2
6 Dist., 1996) Alp. A(I)+(3.)1995) \ AFYypg
'^aS"Y'
ya BY S
4, 1^"i'^^^) / . 1s i^ j
ses iTt Bauz (1954) s 14 F.R.D. 91, 96 4[a a 2d 672S9F54' .otq0 CXaIm Sa. oa.EKq 12 ?, 4
t?? 'iiltS App. 3d 552 669 KOM 92 2io App. 3d 413 (Chln
p a9'^6)Na. E.«95m11 (July 39f^i^.^Tt6T41p^.n,o2."p. \ 1^`r6^)t 363 U.S.
ST:TV. Rrr OF "F€E ISSUE P-^qF5E1'MD FUR RFl
After Defenda..^t-aA elYant's briefs and
d appeal, a ^eparat
112 f7ni^ App. 3d 413
k rationally
pushed Swainn Swain
ST,k ;F OF THE CASF
ted and tried for Aggravated Murder and Murder. C-eonvz.r-t.ede he
ents Allegedly - ° de by the Accused to Police O£f ir-ers . The court refe-rred the
not provide Swain the becOefa t Oa the S+__S S;aorste 1-tolcailvs
precedent.
4Tni-t&a
sT^ LM QF • FACrS
^it^^ Diane Cd^c^w and her two young suns.In 1991, Swa^.^a 1?s^e ^. ^.sc an apartment
Andrew Crouch was the €atner of her }aotmger so?°€m Ors Apr%1. 20, 1991, tbi.cv* and
Crouch aagtaed over child visitation; Ciocach made threats and Chiow snFormed Crouch
she nor the el-tildr^ would be at the residence if la^ ^^se to ccme.
Siea^s.a^ was alone l.s agsart^n^it when Crouch arrived, breaking open tM door
and announcing he would find and kill Swain. Suain attempt
with Crouch, cft made a move as if to draw a gun a
atid fatally stabbed Crczzzh. He t ^ caAl.ed 911.
nva.ction reversed, he retu
matter to Magistrate George ^owel1.s. the November 16,1994, the magistrate denied
Swaar°^
e z-Lad, but
Coeart renderp-d a decision in State v.
ater, another panel of this Court did
o the trial court for re-trial.
On September 9, 1994, Q^wain fileA a Motiran to Suppress Any Non-Recorded
suing no firy3ings of far-t r,or, cezmlus».CMI's of law for the trial
review .
^,^ _ , j -_ - ^$ -F^a^^ Er^l , ^^a^^.n' a ^aebsal ^a^ ected to ^ce ^atrm -lu-tion _o-
kad rqoved to suppress.
Swain was re-convicted and ^ppeas.ed. After his briefs were
hald, a different penel of this coasrt rendered a decision in S°•date v. Semajj rma.th§
oluo App, 3d 1413 (July 12, 1996r , d^.^.idmng sua sa nte t^ast 29
$es are without authorgtg to rule on motions to ^uppresso
One week later, Swain's corviction was affir€se^z th-, sua s atte holdings of
se.^asi Sa^aiteg were ^sc^t a^liec^. ^:o ';is case t^^kfl '°le ^z< ;.r e-,t^e,;:llF ;^a.te^te to t^^
appellant in ier^.^ Swain filed av AppUca;:ion fob Rer-onwiderat.i.oul denied om
..^ait,°s fail^a^°e to prove i.^ffs^tive assista^e fco^^sel.
Pursuant to AfcFadden v Cleveland State Uni^ersit,, 120 Maio St. 3d 54, 896
Idu.U 672 (2008), Swain ;°ecgue:rts en banc reconsideration, present
e,rg e t:
Sa g SDECISl€A IN STATE V . SWAINa C' ; Z N S T A T E V. S
^^ARY TO S ECM a
3. THIS CO s SP .:, ., Sl.D - , TITN
,^ S DECISIONS
A..^GM' .
I. THIS COU_T'S DZNG.S IN 5T:
1pacESSARY ^S S1
. l^°^ EN ^3C . ^^;dSlDE"^?^.^ON_tS^Atff dk MR°tlaY OF 1I"M a-MT'S DECISIONS
State v. Semaj Smith, 112 Ohio App. 3d, 413 (July 12, 1996), the State
granting of a wtion to dismiss by the Erie County Court of Comwn
cleas. In that appeal, the State raised two assi- n. .ts of error, neither of
wtaic..h challenged the authority of aCrim. R. 19 magistrate to rule upon tzDtions
to suppress. This Court, sua s^^^onte, applied the holding;s of State v. CiaSaris
(1995), 107 Ohio App. 3c3. 551, 669 N.E.2d 92, to determine that a Grin., R. 19
imbwevet, tlzis Court c4i.stinguisheel Smith from gMa-ris, given the °°unusual
e was wi.fnwut authcsity to rule upon eaat:ions to suppress.
procedure" employed, Smith® 112 C3. ►io App. 3d @ 416. I3n7.ike tqe situation in
^zagzaris, the magistWate in Smith issued no firAings nor conclusions of
Filed Octo'ber i3 k99^^ It appears this application was ^r^nstra^ec^ as a €eques^.
V SWAIN CO^`L1'S ^^b°^ THIS ^: . r"S
>-for re-opening, App. R. "G(B), a-tid was denied on that tasis ..
law for trje tp.ial court's rev3eiI, thereafter, it was the trial jadge uiiO aclopted
ta.'le magistrate's decision, abserit cie.i^ea.°minative infozmata.on. Id.
saaal, procedure constituted prejcu3ie.ial- error. Id.
thae wee'e, later, this Court decided atate: unrej*xte.d,
9-GI2. Swain originated fran the sam Yfi" court. In Swair., Iappellar^t y s
to su as refeVred to e magistrate as in Smith. Just a5 in
sam f'asrzusaral pro °d Eg was employed wiiereby the magistrate rul
to suppress but i•ssa*d no findings 40£ fact nor ccacaclusic
trial court`s revie,4. trial, the tOs.al }udge adopted
. h n Appe21ast ° S tri -A coaarasel
^d waed to suppress, the following
Without determinative irafo
it.;E^E C^tl^T4 All rizht< It was Ore^.leii, that ok>,^^tiorr,
remins Overruled .Cu„ GI"sITACRE: Tk•arak. yau.TY.-iEMMta, thw bench coxrEe0ence cozecluded..
:ftecorci of Re-Trial, p. 56€3 @ 23-p. 569 {^ 23.
rtest^^^y }^'IIN COURT: Okay. And any comments on that, Mr. flaxter?
[Prosec.utmr3 ^'.. l^s, t^'+: I don't th.irsk ttie Court iieeds r_ay cssmments On
eaersted to tsae ^ur.y.be
- jr^sferme Counsel;TAC#tF may we approach?
Ncs. r-
EwtSon
sini
csn the
; law for the
«^rlCyYS ^^a 9 y me . . C^^t ou are tlii.nkiag ora this isam, but I just1 s
to presez^re it ft^r t;^ reco^. ^ae would mtjmt to any atat tshavecsncerna:rS the umecor<l:ec^ testimony, the rscma.-recoraied statementa,, inour opinion, are obtained in violation of L^ai'enaiarit Ys rights r.eFd" the4th 5th, 14tb.^z Amendmer^ts to the United States ODnsta.tutiean Article I,S20ions 10, 14 and 16 of the Gcnsstitut3.on of the State df Ohio. 'Iheproper way he siwuid. 'nave. done t^a.^1s was to re^.carG3 the inte.rvse^^(inaudible) in the .. ^#oac¢, azd sO we would as.k tt-at no tion-reaorcied
court adm}atect the magistrate`s
ruling, identical ta the "unusual pi'ocedute" employed in Smith.
° Yet, l^eing entically-situated to the a^el^an^ 3.^ °^t§r; was-
provided the 'Dmefit of the sua stonte holdings of that precedent decided one
vieek prior t^appeal. Further, when Pd1` on notice that the ksoldings 0f
e not applied in this case, this Court determined, "On ctireat appea
apgellate co,.nsei. alleged error in ene tRi.k court g s ewident:tary
includin those first raised in Sca^^n's euo^.s.can to su ress,°` St^te^a^nQ ^^se
Fjo. ^.-95-a^11, ^^ececz^b:r 4, 1996, ursepOrted,2. ...asis S. 'I^teis, caxi direc^
a.^eal, Swain met ever^- requirement Eo'l- this Cotztt to a:^aPlYits suo. nte
Ins,ldingu °an o this case.
court of arTeals decisions a-re applicable precedel't unless and amta.l
they are formally overrulee_'` g^c^^^exa v Clevelani. State Jniverssty, 120 flnio
St. 3d' 54, 896 N.N.2d 672, 1415. '11vss, Seu
appeal was decided. Swaia was eii
"All court o£ aVpeals Opini.ons
as d.eened appresPr
still applicable preceden
^^^^^de-m
5e.aD Swaiia is
one panel of tlaOs Court sua v nte set gareCa-cleret in Srnitn^. Ano'ther panel
failed to apply that p^^edent one week later ubm deciding Swain"-s direct
appeal, thoug^t. Swain`s ceunsel raised iss4 with the motion trs suppress. Af teW
Swain brought the 5mitit pr^deLit to this C.csurt's sttentior;, tl-r- benefit of that
precedent was still not pVrosriAed to Swain. As a c€srasbqaaenc.e; Swain remins
wroxsgfully-c€amricted of a crirae for vATich he is actuall.yt. denied trip-
equal kaencfit of established precedent. Reconsideration en barr is tEto- oxily
available remdy available to Seaain to challeisge this coraflict vjhict°x rend4s
questionable this C.ourt`s integrity as an izsstitastion,pettpetuating a las.k of
^•nu^ty z. ;r. sLecis^.o€^s__ the very situation t^t,ty - -^ui cii^co^°a..a,^ _ _
reeor,sid.eN^atiog^s en ba^ is designed to prevent. See, Uraitec^ States of f^raerir^ v.
(10,60): 363 J.S. 685, 689°905 quOtirsg tiaris,
33anc (1954), 14 F.R.D. 91, %.
r s§iret*49. al ta t'ne '
9° be cited as legal authority and weighted
L. Ct It TteL, s.'^. 4^L^), As such S,.zitta is
4
iaTf..Er.,E
cca^rs€ON
Xie f vregaing, A7p1lant "e;zn Swain reqz?c
^s CoartRs decisions inre:ons:i3eatian en b^zra to resolve the ccsnf ^. . .t tet^aee^a ti^^
Sta",:e v. Srith, 112 O-=io App. ;^d 413 (July 12, 1996) and State v. Swain, E-95°
t?11 (July 1.9, 290-5) g ssnreported; et. seq.
^^ar, Swain, krfx-llentMagn Reg. A243-205YANCIP.O. BOX 788Mamfie5.dg OR 449E31
AVZi^^OF S^ .A true copy of the fos:egaizg ras sent untv Dressect^r^u ¢ 247 Gcal u . LoAve. q Saazdustcy , C'd 44870, by regular U.S. raail this ts' c1ay of =2€311.
Defe
