[Cite as State v. Dennis, 2026-Ohio-3359.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
: C.A. No. 30653
Appellee :
: Trial Court Case No. 2020 CR 02185
v. :
: (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas
EMANUEL STEVEN DENNIS : Court)
:
Appellant : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY &
: OPINION
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on August 28, 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
send a copy of the court’s ruling to each party and note that action on the docket.
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,
CHRISTOPHER B. EPLEY, JUDGE
HANSEMAN, J., concurs.
HUFFMAN, J., concurs in judgment only.
OPINION
MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30653
EMANUEL STEVEN DENNIS, Appellant, Pro Se
ANDREW T. FRENCH, Attorney for Appellee
EPLEY, J.
{¶ 1} Emanuel Steven Dennis appeals from the Montgomery County Common Pleas
Court’s order overruling his request for public records. Dennis asserts that the trial court’s
ruling was erroneous, because the records are necessary to support a justiciable claim. For
the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On July 30, 2020, Dennis was indicted on two counts of murder, two counts of
felonious assault, one count of having weapons while under disability, and three counts of
tampering with evidence. On April 16, 2021, following a jury trial, Dennis was found guilty of
one count of murder and one count of tampering with evidence. He was sentenced to a term
of 16 years to life in prison. Dennis appealed, and on August 19, 2022, we affirmed his
conviction.
{¶ 3} On September 10, 2025, Dennis filed a motion to compel the State to provide
public records, which included any records his defense attorney, Lucas Wilder, kept during
his representation of Dennis, discovery that the State provided to Wilder, and the interview
and notes taken by Detective William Geiger pertaining to Latana J. Clark. The State
opposed Dennis’s motion, and the trial court issued its order on September 23, 2025,
overruling Dennis’s motion in its entirety. In denying his request for public records, the trial
court held that Dennis had “not presented a justiciable claim to warrant the court’s
consideration of his request for these alleged public records” and that he “failed to
2
demonstrate that there is any pending proceeding with respect to which the requested
documents would be material.”
{¶ 4} Dennis now appeals the trial court’s denial of his public records request. He
raises five assignments of error, which we address together.
II. Dennis’s Request for Public Records Did Not Comply With R.C. 149.43
{¶ 5} In his assignments of error, Dennis contends that the trial court erroneously
denied his request for public records, because he identified a justiciable claim, as required
by R.C. 149.43.
{¶ 6} We review trial court orders pertaining to the disclosure of public records for an
abuse of discretion. State v. Brown, 2026-Ohio-949, ¶ 7 (2d Dist.). The term “abuse of
discretion” means that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.
State v. McAlpin, 2026-Ohio-148, ¶ 14.
{¶ 7} According to R.C. 149.43(B)(8), “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 inspect or 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 . . . finds that the information sought
in the public record is necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim of the
person.” Unless an inmate can meet these requirements, he is not entitled to records related
to his case. Brown at ¶ 9.
{¶ 8} A “justiciable claim” is one that is properly brought before a court for relief. Id.
at ¶ 10. The justiciable claim requirement usually involves the identification of a pending
proceeding to which the requested documents would be material. State v. Wilson, 2026-3
Ohio-763, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.). Where the movant fails to identify any such proceeding, the trial
court does not err by overruling a public records request. Id. Notably, an inmate cannot
satisfy the justiciable claim requirement by merely alluding to potential future proceedings
that could result from granting access to the records. Id.
{¶ 9} In the present case, there were no motions or proceedings pending in the trial
court to which the requested records would have been relevant, nor did Dennis identify any
such proceeding in his request. Rather, Dennis vaguely asserted that the requested records
were necessary to prove his innocence. This is insufficient to satisfy the justiciable cause
requirement under R.C. 149.43.
{¶ 10} Dennis notes that the Eleventh District has held that R.C. 149.43 does not
require a proceeding to be pending to establish a justiciable claim, only that an inmate has
a justiciable claim to pursue. See State v. Askew, 2017-Ohio-1512, ¶ 12 (11th Dist.).
However, we have disagreed with that interpretation of the law, and regardless, Dennis fails
to identify any justiciable claim—pending or not. Specifically, although he references his
entitlement to a new trial or post-conviction relief, both requests are untimely. Crim.R. 33(B)
requires that a motion for a new trial be filed within 120 days of the verdict and
R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a) dictates that a motion for post-conviction relief be made within
365 days after the date on which the trial transcript is filed in the court of appeals in the direct
appeal of the judgment. The verdict in this case was filed on April 26, 2021, and the trial
transcript was filed with this court as part of the record of the direct appeal on July 15, 2021.
{¶ 11} Although there are exceptions to these deadlines in situations where there is
newly discovered evidence or evidence the movant was previously prevented from
discovering, none of those exceptions apply here. The records Dennis sought would have
been in his attorney’s possession, and accessible to Dennis, before and during the trial.
4
Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Dennis’s public records
request.
{¶ 12} Dennis’s assignments of error are overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 13} The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
HANSEMAN, J., concurs.
HUFFMAN, J., concurs in judgment only.
5