State ex rel. Bevins v. Cooper
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Ohio?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Ohio. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Following a mistrial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated burglary and rape. Judge Ethna Cooper presided over the mistrial and the retrial. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Appellant later filed a motion to issue a final appealable order and to vacate a void judgment. Judge Cooper denied the motion. Appellant then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. The court of appeals dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals was correct in dismissing Appellant’s petition because Appellant had available an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Bevins v. Cooper, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5578.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-5578 THE STATE EX REL. BEVINS, APPELLANT, v. COOPER, JUDGE, APPELLEE. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Bevins v. Cooper, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5578.] Mandamus—Adequate remedy at law—Dismissal of writ seeking final, appealable order affirmed. (No. 2015-1615—Submitted May 3, 2016—Decided August 31, 2016.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-150507. _____________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} We affirm the First District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by appellant, Andrew Bevins Jr. Bevins seeks a writ ordering the trial judge who declared a mistrial in his criminal case to issue a final, appealable order journalizing the decision to declare a mistrial. The court of appeals correctly dismissed the petition. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 2} Bevins was charged with and eventually convicted of aggravated burglary and rape. State v. Bevins, 1st Dist. Hamilton, No. C-050754, 2006-Ohio6974, ¶ 1 (affirming Bevins’s convictions on direct appeal but remanding for resentencing). The convictions were the result of a 2005 trial, following a 2003 mistrial. State ex rel. Bevins v. Cooper, 138 Ohio St.3d 275, 2014-Ohio-544, 6 N.E.3d 33, ¶ 2 (affirming the First District’s dismissal of a petition seeking a writ of mandamus ordering Bevins’s immediate release or a new trial). Respondent, Judge Ethna M. Cooper, presided over the mistrial and the retrial. {¶ 3} On August 19, 2015, Judge Cooper issued an order denying Bevins’s “Motion to Issue a Final Appealable Order and to Vacate a Void Judgment.” Bevins filed his petition for a writ of mandamus in the First District Court of Appeals on August 31. That court granted Judge Cooper’s motion to dismiss the petition on September 16. On October 2, Bevins appealed that decision to this court. {¶ 4} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, Bevins must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the part of Judge Cooper to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6. {¶ 5} The court of appeals was correct in dismissing Bevins’s petition. Bevins could have appealed Judge Cooper’s denial of his motion for a final, appealable order, and thus he had available an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Ward v. Reed, 141 Ohio St.3d 50, 2014-Ohio-4512, 21 N.E.3d 303, ¶ 12 (“An appeal is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that precludes an action for mandamus or procedendo”), citing State ex rel. Crabtree v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Health, 77 Ohio St.3d 247, 250, 673 N.E.2d 1281 (1997), and State ex rel. Sevayega v. McMonagle, 122 Ohio St.3d 54, 2009-Ohio- 2 January Term, 2016 2367, 907 N.E.2d 1180, ¶ 1. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Judgment affirmed. O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. _________________ Andrew Bevins Jr., pro se. Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. _________________ 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
