COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 75740 STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. : EDSEL LOVE : : PETITION FOR WRIT OF Relator : MANDAMUS : vs. : MOTION NO. 4949 : CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR : JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO : : Respondent : JUDGMENT : DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APRIL 15, 1999 APPEARANCES: For relator : EDSEL LOVE, pro se #A163-179 Post Office Box 4501 2338 North West Street Lima, Ohio 45802 For respondent : WILLIAM D. MASON Cuyahoga County Prosecutor DIANE SMILANICK, Assistant Justice Center, Courts Tower 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- JAMES M. PORTER, A.J. Edsel Love, relator, is seeking a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, to mail him copies of the documents that are specified in Exhibit "A" to his Complaint: "Crim.R. 16 discovery bullistics (sic) report, autopsy report, and all other tangible documentation either inculpatory or excul- patory." Relator, who is incarcerated, stated in his Complaint that he needs these papers in order to file a successive petition for postconviction relief. Relator also contends that R.C. 149.43, the pubic records statute, should not be applied to prisoners because, as a prisoner, he is not a member of the public, he is without funds, and he is without a designee. Relator has asked, therefore, that we review this action as a general complaint in mandamus rather than a public records request pursuant to R.C. 149.43. Respondent moved for summary judgment and, for the reasons that follow, we grant respondent's motion. In order for this court to issue a writ of mandamus, we must find "that the relator has a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, that the respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act, and that [the] relator has no plain and adequate remedy at law." State ex rel. Westchester v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 42, 399 N.E.2d 81, paragraph one of the syllabus. Relator contends he has a constitutional right to the documents requested, that the prosecutor has a duty to provide "this exculpatory -3- evidence" pursuant to the Ohio and United States Constitutions, and that he has no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law because he needs the documents to file another petition for postconviction relief. Relator, however, has not directed us to any articles or sections of the Constitutions which bestow this alleged entitlement of relator and alleged duty of respondent. A writ of mandamus will not be issued to compel the observance of the laws generally, State ex rel. Kuczak v. Saffold (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 123, 616 N.E.2d 230; State ex rel. Tillimon v. Weiher (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 468, 605 N.E.2d 35. A writ of mandamus, because it is an extraordinary remedy, may issue only when a relator establishes a clear legal right to the writ, State ex rel. Papadopoulos v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1935), 130 Ohio St. 77, 196 N.E. 780, paragraph two of the syllabus, and only when the law is clear, State ex rel. Connole v. Cleveland Board of Education (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 43, 47, 621 N.E.2d 850; State ex rel. The Clifton Highland Co. v. City of Lakewood (1931), 41 Ohio App. 9, 179 N.E. 198. Relator has not established his clear legal right or the prosecutor's clear legal duty, and we thus decline to issue the writ. Moreover, if relator is seeking this discovery pursuant to Crim.R. 16, the time for disclosure pursuant to that rule has passed. Respondent had a continuing duty to disclose pursuant to Crim.R. 16(D) only prior to or during trial. State ex rel. Flagner v. Arko (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 176, 177, 699 N.E.2d 62. Relator -4- could have requested the subject documents prior to pleading guilty as a part of pretrial discovery, but it would be too late now to proceed against the prosecutor in mandamus using Crim.R. 16. Accordingly, respondent's motion for summary judgment is granted. Costs to relator. ANN DYKE, J., CONCURS .