On Friday, May 9, 2025, Raylon A. Davis filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court of Ohio against Allen County Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey L. Reed and the judges of the Third District Court of Appeals. The filing references trial court cases CR2014-0118 and CR2015-0361, as well as appellate cases 01-17-44 and 01-17-45. Davis, currently incarcerated at Allen Oakwood Correctional Institution in Lima, Ohio, seeks to compel the correction of alleged inaccuracies in court records.
The complaint asserts that on April 19, 2017, Judge Reed entered incorrect facts in a judgment denying Davis’s motions to dismiss in the referenced trial court cases. Specifically, Davis claims Reed inaccurately stated that a February 9, 2017, entry continued the trial to May 16, 2017. According to the complaint, the February 9, 2017, entry instead vacated a trial date set for February 21, 2017, for seven days and scheduled a pretrial conference for February 28, 2017. Davis alleges this misrepresentation was material to Reed’s decision.
The complaint further states that in October 2018, the Third District Court of Appeals adopted these allegedly inaccurate facts in its decision in State v. Davis, 2018-Ohio-4368. The appellate court noted that the trial court, on February 9, 2017, granted a continuance and set the trial for May 16, 2017, citing specific docket entries. Davis contends that the trial court’s docket and journal reflect a different schedule, with a trial date set for February 28, 2017, and that the respondents were aware of the inaccuracies.
Davis argues that the use of these incorrect facts in both the trial and appellate court decisions prejudiced the fairness of his proceedings, violating his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution. He has repeatedly attempted to correct the record through motions under Ohio Criminal Rule 36 and Ohio Appellate Rule 9(E), with no objections from the state, but claims the respondents have failed to act despite acknowledging the inaccuracies.
The complaint emphasizes that courts have a legal duty to ensure their journals reflect accurate information, citing State ex rel. Worcester v. Donnellon. Davis asserts he has a clear legal right to have the record corrected, that the respondents are obligated to perform this duty, and that no adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law. He seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Reed to amend the April 19, 2017, entry and the appellate judges to revise the October 2018 opinion to align with the trial court’s docket.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
