[Cite as State ex rel. Tilton v. Cornachio, 2026-Ohio-3299.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO ex rel. CASE NO. 2026-L-0053 DENNIS G. TILTON,
Relator, Original Action for Writ of Mandamus
- vs -JUDGE MARISA L. CORNACHIO,
et al.,
Respondents.
PER CURIAM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: August 24, 2026
Judgment: Petition dismissed
Dennis G. Tilton, pro se, 35673 West Island Drive, Eastlake, OH 44095 (Relator).
Lisa M. Zaring and Cooper D. Bowen, Montgomery Jonson, L.L.P., 600 Vine Street, Suite 2650, Cincinnati, OH 45202 (For Respondent, Judge Marisa L. Cornachio).
Joseph R. Klammer, The Klammer Law Office, Ltd., 7482 Center Street, Unit 6, Mentor, OH 44060 (For Respondent, Jacqueline M. O’Donnell).
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Relator, Dennis G. Tilton, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus against
Respondents, Judge Marisa L. Cornachio and Jacqueline M. O’Donnell. Relator’s Petition
sought a writ ordering Respondents “to produce or identify with specificity the exact
certified conviction document used” at Relator’s sentencing in the Willoughby Municipal
Court. He requested that Respondents “produce and attach a true and accurate copy of the exact certified conviction document referenced at sentencing and handed to the court
on January 14, 2025.”
{¶2} On June 3, 2026, O’Donnell filed a Motion to Deny as Moot and Motion for
Leave to Answer. O’Donnell’s Motion attached “the certified entry” referenced during
Relator’s sentencing. The attached document was a certified copy of Relator’s March 6,
2014, conviction for DWI in the 29th Judicial Circuit Court, Jasper County Missouri.
{¶3} On June 11, 2026, Relator filed an Opposition to the Motion to Deny as
Moot because O’Donnell did not answer the central issue raised in his petition, namely,
to produce the “exact sentencing document that the prosecutor represented to the court
as a certified conviction and that the court later stated was handed up.”
{¶4} On June 15, 2026, Judge Cornachio filed a Motion to Dismiss in which she
argued that she had no clear legal duty to provide the requested record to Relator
because she did not have any responsive record “in her custody or control.”
{¶5} On June 17, 2026, O’Donnell filed a Motion to Dismiss and Deny as Moot
on Question of “Identification” and an Answer. The Motion to Dismiss argued that no Ohio
statute created a duty requiring an Ohio prosecutor to identify a document used during a
sentencing hearing.
{¶6} On July 7, 2026, Relator filed a Brief in Opposition to Respondent
Cornachio’s Motion to Dismiss. Relator argued that a specific document was provided to
Judge Cornachio and that she had a legal duty to disclose what that document was and
whether it was in fact the “later produced” Missouri judgment of conviction. He argued
that the “issue is not whether a later-produced record exists in general form, but whether
the sentencing-use materials have been produced or otherwise accounted for with
PAGE 2 OF 6
Case No. 2026-L-0053
specificity.” Relator, in short, sought “a judicial accounting of the materials the court relied
upon” at his sentencing hearing and “whether the court can identify or account for the
materials used.” Based on this, he argued that the issue of mootness was not resolved
by O’Donnell’s production of a certified conviction or Judge Cornachio’s claim that she
did not possess the document.
{¶7} “Dismissal of an action seeking writs of mandamus, prohibition, and/or
procedendo under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) is appropriate if we find that after presuming all factual
allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the relator’s
favor, it appears beyond doubt that the relator can prove no set of facts entitling him to
relief.” State ex rel. Gordon v. Summit Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2025-Ohio-2927, ¶
8. “While we must accept factual assertions as true, ‘unsupported legal conclusions, even
when cast as factual assertions, are not presumed true for purposes of a motion to
dismiss.’” Id., quoting State ex rel. Matre v. Reed, 2020-Ohio-4777, ¶ 12. “We may
consider documents attached to or incorporated into the complaint when ruling on a
Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss.” Id. “A court is not required to accept allegations in a
complaint as true when they are contradicted by documents attached to the complaint.”
State ex rel. Washington v. D’Apolito, 2018-Ohio-5135, ¶ 10.
{¶8} “Mandamus is a writ, issued in the name of the state to an inferior tribunal,
a corporation, board, or person, commanding the performance of an act which the law
specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.” R.C. 2731.01. “‘The
function of mandamus is to compel the performance of a present existing duty as to which
there is a default.’” State ex rel. Willis v. Sheboy, 6 Ohio St.3d 167, 168 (1983), quoting
State ex rel. Fed. Homes Properties, Inc. v. Singer, 9 Ohio St.2d 95, 96 (1967). “To be
PAGE 3 OF 6
Case No. 2026-L-0053
entitled to a writ of mandamus, a party must establish, by clear and convincing evidence,
(1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of the
respondent to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of the law.” State ex rel. Gadell-Newton v. Husted, 2018-Ohio-1854, ¶ 6.
{¶9} “The Public Records Act requires a custodian of public records to make
records available when properly requested.” State ex rel. Ames v. Big Walnut Local
School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2025-Ohio-2493, ¶ 9, citing R.C. 149.43(B)(1). “When a records
custodian fails to fulfill this duty or any of the related duties set forth in the statute, the
requesting party may petition for a writ of mandamus to enforce its legal right of access
to the record.” Id., citing R.C. 149.43(C)(1)(b). “A public office is under no duty to create
new documents to satisfy a public-records request.” State ex rel. McDougald v. Greene,
2020-Ohio-5100, ¶ 10. “It necessarily follows that when a requester seeks a nonexistent
record, a public office has no duty to provide it.” Id. “In general, a public-records
mandamus case becomes moot when the public office provides the requested records.”
State ex rel. Martin v. Greene, 2019-Ohio-1827, ¶ 7.
{¶10} Relator’s Petition sought a specific public record, to wit: the certified copy
of his Missouri DWI conviction. He has received it. However, Relator has argued that his
Petition is not moot because he is also seeking “a judicial accounting of the materials the
court relied upon” at his sentencing hearing and “whether the court can identify or account
for the materials used.”
{¶11} However, this relief does not fall within the ambit of a public records request,
and Appellant has not identified any clear legal right to this accounting. Nor has he
PAGE 4 OF 6
Case No. 2026-L-0053
identified any legal duty imposed on Respondents which would require Respondents to
affirmatively create such an accounting.
{¶12} O’Donnell has affirmatively provided a certified copy of the document
Relator has requested. Because of this, Relator’s Petition is now moot.
{¶13} For the foregoing reasons, Respondents’ Motions to Dismiss are granted,
and Relator’s Petition is dismissed. Any other pending motions are hereby overruled as
moot.
MATT LYNCH, P.J., JOHN J. EKLUND, J., ROBERT J. PATTON, J., concur.
PAGE 5 OF 6
Case No. 2026-L-0053
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the Per Curiam Opinion of this court, Respondents’
Motions to Dismiss are granted, and Relator’s Petition is dismissed.
Costs are taxed against Relator.
Any other pending motions are hereby overruled as moot.
PRESIDING JUDGE MATT LYNCH,
concurs
JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND,
concurs
JUDGE ROBERT J. PATTON,
concurs
THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PAGE 6 OF 6
Case No. 2026-L-0053