On Thursday, February 26, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Third District Court of Appeals’ decision to dismiss a complaint filed by Cornelius Patterson Jr. against Judge Jonathan P. Starn of the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas.
The case, State ex rel. Patterson v. Starn, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-627, centered on Patterson’s attempt to secure a writ of mandamus compelling Judge Starn to comply with a previous mandate from the Third District.
The underlying issue stemmed from Patterson’s 2011 conviction on four felony counts in Hancock County, which resulted in a maximum life sentence. In 2019, Patterson filed a pro se motion seeking to correct his judgment, arguing that it lacked proper notification of postrelease control. The trial court granted this motion, held a resentencing hearing, and issued a corrected judgment.
Patterson subsequently appealed, claiming his constitutional rights were violated during resentencing when his request to consult with counsel was denied. The Third District agreed, reversing the judgment and remanding the case back to the trial court.
However, while the case was pending on remand, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a ruling in State v. Harper, 2020-Ohio-2913, which held that errors in postrelease control imposition render a judgment voidable rather than void, and such claims are subject to the doctrine of res judicata if not timely raised.
Relying on Harper, the trial court then dismissed Patterson’s motion without holding a second resentencing hearing. Patterson appealed again, but the Third District upheld the trial court’s decision, stating it had complied with the initial remand order and was bound by the Harper ruling.
Patterson then filed a mandamus action against Judge Starn, seeking to compel compliance with the original Third District mandate. Judge Starn moved to dismiss, arguing that the Third District had already determined compliance and that Patterson had an adequate remedy at law through appeal. The Third District agreed and dismissed the mandamus action, a decision that was ultimately affirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reasoned that Patterson had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by directly appealing the trial court’s dismissal, making mandamus relief inappropriate. The court distinguished this case from State ex rel. Heck v. Kessler, where mandamus was deemed appropriate due to a lower court’s direct disobedience of a superior court’s mandate. The court concluded that Patterson’s complaint did not allege such direct disobedience.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
