[Cite as State ex rel. Tingler v. VanEerten, 2022-Ohio-2236.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
OTTAWA COUNTY
State ex rel. Charles Tingler Court of Appeals No. OT-22-029
Relator
v.
Prosecutor James VanEerten DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Respondent. Decided: June 29, 2022
*****
Charles Tingler, Pro se.
James J. VanEerten, Pro se.
*****
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on the petition of relator, Charles Tingler, for
a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Prosecutor James VanEerten, to present a case
against Hon. Bruce Winters to the Ottawa County Grand Jury. For the reasons that
follow, we find that relator cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint, and
relator’s complaint is frivolous. Therefore, we sua sponte dismiss relator’s petition for a
writ of mandamus.1
{¶ 2} The facts alleged in relator’s complaint are that in February 2017, he
contacted the Port Clinton Police Department to file a police report against Ottawa
County Court of Common Pleas Judge Bruce Winters for the crime of theft in office.
Port Clinton Police Detective Corbin Carpenter filed a police report, conducted an
investigation, and forwarded the results of his investigation to respondent. Relator
alleges that respondent has since failed to present the case against Hon. Bruce Winters to
the Ottawa County Grand Jury. Relator also notes that respondent was formerly
employed by Hon. Bruce Winters as a court administrator and as a magistrate.
{¶ 3} “To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, [relator] must establish by clear and
convincing evidence a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the
part of [the respondent] to provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of the law.” State ex rel. A.N. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 165 Ohio
St.3d 71, 2021-Ohio-2071, 175 N.E.3d 539, ¶ 9. “In general, a prosecutor has no clear
duty to prosecute an offense alleged in a charging affidavit.” Id. “‘Only when the failure
to prosecute constitutes an abuse of discretion will a prosecutor be compelled to
prosecute.’” Id., quoting State ex rel. Capron v. Dattilio, 146 Ohio St.3d 7, 2016-Ohio-
1
Respondent has prematurely filed a motion to dismiss relator’s petition, and realtor has
filed a response in opposition. Because we sua sponte dismiss relator’s complaint, we do
not reach respondent’s motion to dismiss, and it is hereby denied as moot.
2.
1504, 50 N.E.3d 551, ¶ 4. “Thus, a prosecutor’s discretionary decision whether to
prosecute is not generally subject to judicial review.” Id., citing State ex rel. Master v.
Cleveland, 75 Ohio St.3d 23, 27, 661 N.E.2d 180 (1996).
{¶ 4} Here, relator cannot demonstrate that respondent abused his discretion five
years ago when he failed to seek an indictment against Hon. Bruce Winters. In his
complaint, relator nakedly alleges that Hon. Bruce Winters committed the crime of theft
in office. However, relator has not attempted to set forth any facts upon which his
criminal allegation is based. Furthermore, the February 8, 2017 police report filed by
Sergeant Corbin Carpenter, which relator attached to his mandamus complaint, states
only:
On the aforementioned date & time I received an email from Charles
Tingler (2-8-2017 at 0005hrs) requesting I contact him regarding a report
he filed with the Ottawa County Sheriff’s Office (20170209-000) on 1-27-
2017 with Sgt. Zach Bowling. Said OCSO report was attached to the email
and merely states that Sgt. Bowling spoke with Charles Tingler on the
phone regarding a theft that allegedly occurred at the Ottawa County
Courthouse. Sgt. Bowling referred him to this department.
Thus, the entirety of relator’s complaint can be summarized as: “I alleged a crime was
committed, therefore you must prosecute.”
3.
{¶ 5} Without any facts or evidence—or even allegations of facts or evidence—
upon which to evaluate whether a crime may or may not have occurred, we simply cannot
say that respondent abused his discretion in declining to present a case against Hon.
Bruce Winters to the Ottawa County Grand Jury. Therefore, we find that relator cannot
prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint, and relator’s complaint is frivolous.
{¶ 6} Accordingly, we sua sponte dismiss relator’s petition for a writ of
mandamus. See State ex rel. Jones v. Garfield Hts. Mun. Court, 77 Ohio St.3d 447, 448,
674 N.E.2d 1381 (1997) (“Although sua sponte dismissal of a complaint without notice is
generally inappropriate, it is warranted if the complaint is frivolous or the claimant
obviously cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint.”). Costs of this action are
assessed against relator.
{¶ 7} The clerk is directed to serve upon the parties, within three days, a copy of
this decision in a manner prescribed by Civ.R. 5(B).
Writ Denied.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
____________________________
Myron C. Duhart, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
____________________________
JUDGE
4.
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
5.