COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 79160
DOUGLAS P. WILBERGER        :
                            :      PETITION FOR WRIT OF
     Relator                :
                            :            MANDAMUS
     vs.                    :
                            :
HIGHLAND HILLS POLICE       :   MOTION NO. 25786 TO DISMISS
DEPARTMENT                  :
                            :
     Respondent             :
                            :
JUDGMENT                    :           DISMISSED.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION      :      MARCH 22, 2001
APPEARANCES:
For relator:                  Douglas P. Wilberger
                              P.O. Box 45699
                              Lucasville, Ohio 45699
For respondent:               Thomas P. O'Donnell, Esq.
                              3700 Northfield Rd., Suite 11
                              Cleveland, Ohio 44122
                               -2-
SWEENEY, JAMES D., J.:
     The relator, Douglas P. Wilberger, seeks a writ of mandamus in
order to compel the respondent, the Highland Hills Police Dept., to
produce copies of records that relate to his plea of guilty to one
count of felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11) in State v.  Wilberger,
Cuyahoga County  Court of Common Pleas  Case No. CR-320622.   The
respondent has filed a motion  to dismiss which we grant for  the
following reasons.
     The relator  demands copies of  the following records  which
relate to Case No. CR-320622: 1) complaint and affidavit;
2)  witness statements;  3)  investigation footnotes  of  Officer
Eppinger; 4) all documents from the Cleveland House of Corrections;
5) warrant; and 6) conclusion of investigation report.  Generally,
the public may inspect and obtain copies of public records.   See
R.C. 149.43(B)(1)-(3).   However, an  exception exists for  those
persons who  are incarcerated and  seek certain  types of  public
records.  R.C. 149.43(B)(4) provides that:
          A public  officer or  person responsible  for
          public records is  not required  to permit  a
          person who  is  incarcerated  pursuant  to  a
          criminal conviction or a juvenile adjudication
          to inspect or to obtain a copy of any  public
          record concerning a criminal investigation or
          prosecution or  concerning  what would  be  a
          criminal investigation or prosecution if  the
          subject of the  investigation were an  adult,
          unless the request to inspect or to obtain  a
          copy of  the  record is  for the  purpose  of
          acquiring  information  that  is  subject  to
          release as a public record under this section
          and the judge who imposed the sentence or made
          the adjudication with respect to the  person,
          or the judge's successor in office, finds that
          the information sought in the public record is
          necessary  to support  what appears  to be  a
                               -3-
          justifiable claim of the person.
     Herein, the relator  has failed to  demonstrate that he  has
attempted to  comply  with  the mandatory  requirements  of  R.C.
149.43(B)(4) through a petition addressed to the judge that imposed
the original sentence of incarceration.  In addition, the relator
has failed to demonstrate that the trial court judge has determined
that any record  sought is necessary  to support any  justifiable
claim.  State ex rel. Walker v.  Balraj (Aug. 2, 2000),  Cuyahoga
App. No. 77967, unreported.
     Finally, the Supreme Court of Ohio, in State ex rel. Steckman
v. Jackson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420, held that:
          Except as required by Crim.R. 16, information
          assembled  by law  enforcement  officials  in
          connection with a probable or pending criminal
          proceeding is, by the work product  exception
          found in  R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c),excepted  from
          required  release  as  said  information   is
          compiled in anticipation of litigation. * * *
          Id., paragraph five of the syllabus.
     The  Supreme  Court  of Ohio  also  held  in  Steckman  that
information assembled by law enforcement officials in  connection
with a  criminal proceeding is,  by the  work product  exception,
excepted from required release and that a defendant in a criminal
case who has exhausted the direct appeals of his or her conviction
may not avail himself or herself of R.C. 149.43 in order to support
a petition for postconviction relief..  Steckman, supra, paragraphs
five and  six of  the syllabus.   Based upon  the application  of
Steckman, we decline to issue a writ of mandamus on behalf of the
relator.  See also, State ex rel. Larson v. Cleveland Pub. Safety
                               -4-
Dir. (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 464.
     Accordingly, we grant  the respondent's  motion to  dismiss.
Clerk to serve notice of this judgment to all parties as provided
in Civ.R. 58(B).  Costs to relator.
KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J., and
TERRENCE O'DONNELL, J., CONCUR.
                                     ______________________________
                                           JAMES D. SWEENEY
                                                JUDGE
 
.