Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Wilson

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 763
• Docket Number: 30594

• Judges: Huffman

• Opinion

• Authorities (16)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (12.7K)

• PDF

Syllabus

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motions for public records. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the information he sought was necessary to support a justiciable claim, and his motions were barred by res judicata. Judgment affirmed.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Wilson, 2026-Ohio-763.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO :
: C.A. No. 30594
Appellee :
: Trial Court Case No. 2006 CR 04325
v. :
: (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas
JOSHUA EUGENE WILSON : Court)
:
Appellant : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY &
: OPINION

...........

Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on March 6, 2026, the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed.

Costs to be paid as stated in App.R. 24.

Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately

serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.

Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified

copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note

the service on the appellate docket.

For the court,

MARY K. HUFFMAN, JUDGE

LEWIS, P.J., and EPLEY, J., concur.
OPINION
MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30594

JOSHUA EUGENE WILSON, Appellant, Pro Se
ANDREW T. FRENCH, Attorney for Appellee

HUFFMAN, J.

{¶ 1} Joshua E. Wilson appeals from a decision and entry of the Montgomery County

Court of Common Pleas denying his motion for public records. For the following reasons,

the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} This court previously affirmed Wilson’s 2007 conviction for murder and felonious

assault. State v. Wilson, 2008-Ohio-4130 (2d Dist.). In January and February 2025,

Wilson filed in the trial court two pro se motions for public records pursuant to

R.C. 149.43(B)(8). In his first motion, he sought fingernail scrapings, a Bic lighter, an “AA

Kit,” and miscellaneous clothing from the prosecutor’s office and/or the Dayton Police

Department, and he further requested the identity of the officers who collected the evidence,

the identity of those from whom the evidence was retrieved, information regarding whether

any testing was performed on the items, and if not, why not, and any and all documents

related to the case. Wilson also sought an accounting of any lost, destroyed, or transferred

evidence. Citing State v. Askew, 2017-Ohio-1512 (11th Dist.), Wilson asserted that

“R.C. 149.43(B)(8) does not require a pending justiciable claim.” He claimed that he “has

continually maintained his innocence,” and that the information he sought was “necessary

to support what appears to be a ‘Justiciable Claim’ of a meritorious Motion being filed” based

upon prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and a Brady violation. He

further argued that the information he sought “will also support his Motion for Leave and

2
Motion for New Trial that is pending in the Court of Appeals Case No. CA 030178.” 1

{¶ 3} In his second motion, Wilson sought access to multiple files and records in the

possession of attorneys involved in his case, as well as the court, to support his claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. The State opposed the

motions.

{¶ 4} On August 8, 2025, the trial court issued the decision at issue in this appeal. It

was significant to the court that Wilson failed to obtain a finding from the sentencing judge

or the judge’s successor that the requested information was necessary to support what

appeared to be a justiciable claim. Citing in part State ex rel. Sawyer v. Cuyahoga Cty.

Dept. of Children & Family Servs., 2006-Ohio-4574, the court further noted that Wilson

exhausted his direct appeals and accordingly could not avail himself of R.C. 149.43 to

support a petition for post-conviction relief, and that Wilson nevertheless appeared to be

using the statute to gather evidence to support such a petition.

Assignments of Error and Analysis

{¶ 5} Wilson asserts that he was entitled to the public records he requested and that

the trial court erred in failing to so find. He directs our attention to State ex rel. Caster v.

Columbus, 2016-Ohio-8394, which he claims “fundamentally altered Ohio’s public records

law for criminal defendants.” According to Wilson, the trial court “relied exclusively on

precedent that predates and was effectively overruled” by Caster. Wilson acknowledges

that he “seeks records to investigate potential grounds for post-conviction relief under

R.C. 2953.23,” and he argues that doing so “constitutes a justiciable claim.”

1 On January 9, 2024, Wilson filed a pro se motion for leave to file a motion to vacate his

conviction under the postconviction relief statute or, in the alternative, a motion for leave to
file a motion for new trial pursuant to Crim.R. 33. On January 12, 2024, without leave of
court, Wilson filed a motion for new trial under Crim.R. 33(A)(2)(C). The trial court overruled
the motions on May 29, 2024.

3
Standard of Review

{¶ 6} “An inmate may seek appellate review of a trial court's denial of his request for

public records. Such orders are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Shontee,

2022-Ohio-4319, ¶ 7 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Lather, 2009-Ohio-3215, ¶ 11 (6th Dist.), citing

State ex rel. Rittner v. Barber, 2006-Ohio-592, ¶ 31 (6th Dist.). “A trial court abuses its

discretion when it makes a decision that is unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary.”

State v. Darmond, 2013-Ohio-966, ¶ 34, citing State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157

(1980). Most instances of abuse of discretion occur when a trial court makes a decision

that is unreasonable. State v. Gilbreath, 2022-Ohio-3759, ¶ 8 (2d Dist.), citing AAAA Ents.,

Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161 (1990).

“‘A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would support that

decision.’” Id., quoting AAAA Ents. “‘Absent an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial

court in making the ruling, its decision must be affirmed.’” State v. Ogletree, 2014-Ohio-

3431, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 527 (1992).

R.C. 149.43(B)(8)

{¶ 7} As an inmate, R.C. 149.43(B)(8) applied to Wilson’s public records request. In

pertinent part, that provision states:

A public office or person responsible for public records is not required to permit

a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a criminal conviction . . . to obtain a

copy of any public record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution

. . . 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 the judge's

4
successor in office, finds that the information sought in the public record is

necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim of the person.

R.C. 149.43(B)(8).

{¶ 8} “Through the passage of R.C. 149.43(B)(8), ‘[t]he General Assembly clearly

evidenced a public-policy decision to restrict a convicted inmate's unlimited access to public

records in order to conserve law enforcement resources.'” State v. Rodriguez, 2014-Ohio-

2583, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.), quoting State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 2006–Ohio–5858, ¶ 14.

“The statute ‘sets forth heightened requirements for inmates seeking public records, and [it]

requires an incarcerated criminal defendant to demonstrate that the information he is

seeking pursuant to R.C. 149.43 is necessary to support a justiciable claim or defense.’”

State v. Boyle, 2022-Ohio-2887, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Gibson, 2007-Ohio-7161,

¶ 13 (2d Dist.) (applying former R.C. 149.43(B)(4), now R.C. 149.43(B)(8)).

{¶ 9} “A ‘justiciable claim’ is a claim properly brought before a court of justice for

relief.” State v. Wilson, 2011-Ohio-4195, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.). Establishing such a claim

“ordinarily involves identifying a ‘pending proceeding with respect to which the requested

documents would be material.’” Rodriguez, ¶ 14, quoting State v. Rodriguez, 2014-Ohio-

1313, ¶ 5 (6th Dist.); Wilson at ¶ 5. “[W]here an incarcerated defendant [does] not identify

any pending proceeding with respect to which the requested documents would be material,

the trial court [does] not err in overruling a public records request.” State v. Atakpu, 2013-

Ohio-4392, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.), citing Gibson at 14. The “law is clear that [an inmate] cannot

sufficiently carry his burden of showing a justiciable claim by merely alluding to possible

future proceedings that could result from access to the records.” State v. Wofford, 2016-

Ohio-7188, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.); accord State v. Carr, 2019-Ohio-3802, ¶ 24 (2d Dist.), quoting

Wofford at ¶ 15.

5
{¶ 10} As the State asserts, at the time Wilson made his public records requests,

“there were no motions or other proceedings pending in the trial court to which the requested

documents would be relevant.” Because Wilson failed to identify any pending proceeding

with respect to which the requested documents would be material, the trial court did not err

in overruling his motions. While we recognize that the Eleventh District found Atakpu “not

persuasive,” and further concluded that R.C. 149.43(B)(8) “does not require that a justiciable

claim is pending, only that the inmate has a justiciable claim to be advanced,” we disagree.

Askew, 2017-Ohio-1512, at ¶ 12 (11th Dist.).

{¶ 11} Further, Wilson mischaracterizes Caster, 2016-Ohio-8394. Therein, an

attorney engaged by the Ohio Innocence Project petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel

the City of Columbus to comply with a public records request for law enforcement records

relating to an inmate who was convicted of murder in 2007, and whose direct appeals ended

years earlier. As the State asserts, the application of R.C. 148.43(B)(8) was not at issue

therein. Caster held that “the specific-investigatory-work-product exception of

R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c) does not extend beyond the completion of the trial for which the

information was gathered.” Id. at ¶ 47. Caster found “a clear legal right to the requested

records and that respondents had a clear legal duty to provide the records in accordance

with R.C. 149.43(B)(1).” Id. at ¶ 54.

{¶ 12} The “Ohio Supreme Court has held that its decision in Caster does not affect

an incarcerated person’s obligation to comply with R.C. 149.43(B)(8).” Shontee, 2022-

Ohio-4319, at ¶ 11, (2d Dist.), citing State ex rel. Ellis v. Cleveland Police Forensic

Laboratory, 2019-Ohio-4201, ¶ 11-12. As set forth above, Wilson was required to identify

a pending proceeding with respect to which the requested information would be material.

Wilson’s reliance upon Caster is misplaced.

6
Res Judicata

{¶ 13} Finally, this court affirmed the decision of the trial court denying Wilson’s

motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial on February 7, 2025. State v. Wilson, 2025-

Ohio-392 (2d Dist.), appeal not accepted, 2025-Ohio-1483. The fingernail scrapings, Bic

lighter, the “AA Kit,” and the miscellaneous clothing were addressed by the trial court therein,

and in affirming the judgment of the trial court, this court found that “the items on which

Wilson relied did not create a strong probability of a different result at trial, given the

overwhelming evidence of Wilson’s guilt.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 27.

{¶ 14} The doctrine of res judicata is well established: “a valid, final judgment

rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of

the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.” Grava v.

Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 382 (1995). In other words, “‘an existing final judgment

or decree between the parties to litigation is conclusive as to all claims which were or might

have been litigated in a first lawsuit.’” Id., quoting Natl. Amusements, Inc. v. Springdale,

53 Ohio St.3d 60 (1960). Wilson raised the issue of the same records in his motion to

vacate his conviction under the postconviction relief statute and alternative motion for leave

to file a motion for a new trial. Res judicata applies to his motions for public records whether

or not he established a justiciable claim.

Conclusion

{¶ 15} Based upon the foregoing, and in the absence of an abuse of discretion,

Wilson’s sole assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

.............

LEWIS, P.J., and EPLEY, J., concur.

7