The Ohio Supreme Court has affirmed the dismissal of a petition filed by Christopher P. Conomy, who sought writs of mandamus and procedendo related to two criminal cases against him. The court’s decision, handed down on December 2, 2025, upheld the lower court’s rulings on several key points, including the exercise of judicial discretion, the availability of alternative legal remedies, and the limitations on a judge’s authority after a case dismissal.
Background of the Case
The case originated in Delaware Municipal Court, where Conomy faced charges of aggravated menacing. Judge Kyle Rohrer presided over the case. Based on a competency evaluation, Judge Rohrer determined that Conomy was not fit to stand trial and dismissed the charge on September 25, 2023. Later, Conomy was also a defendant in another criminal case, which was dismissed without prejudice on the basis of his incompetence.
Conomy subsequently filed a petition in the Fifth District Court of Appeals, seeking writs of mandamus and procedendo against Judge Rohrer, Delaware City Prosecutor Amelia Bean-DeFlumer, Delaware City Attorney Natalia Harris, and the City of Delaware. He requested that the court order specific actions related to the dismissed criminal cases. Conomy argued that the allegations of his incompetence were used against him in his ongoing divorce and child-custody proceedings, leading to the loss of custody of his children.
Specifically, Conomy sought a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Rohrer to amend the September 25, 2023, entry in the first case, correct the record, and change the dismissal from “without prejudice” to “with prejudice.” He also requested a writ of procedendo ordering Judge Rohrer to rule on a pending motion in the second case, correct the record, and amend the dismissal entry. Furthermore, Conomy sought a writ of mandamus against the city officials to withdraw allegedly false statements, withdraw all charges, and take other actions to clear his name. Finally, he requested damages for emotional distress and other losses.
The Court of Appeals Decision
The Fifth District Court of Appeals dismissed Conomy’s petition, and the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the decision.
Key Findings of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed each of Conomy’s claims and his motions filed during the appeal.
Mandamus Against Judge Rohrer: The court agreed with the lower court’s conclusion that Conomy’s claim for mandamus against Judge Rohrer should be dismissed. The court found that a writ of mandamus would not be issued to control how judicial discretion is exercised. Additionally, the court found that Conomy had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law, as he could have sought to seal or expunge the record.
Procedendo Against Judge Rohrer: The Supreme Court also affirmed the dismissal of Conomy’s claim for a writ of procedendo against Judge Rohrer. The court determined that Judge Rohrer lacked jurisdiction to rule on Conomy’s motion to amend the dismissal entry after the case had been dismissed.
Mandamus Against the City: The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Conomy’s mandamus claim against the city. The court found that Conomy had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law through a defamation action to address the allegedly false statements made by the prosecutor. The court also noted that the city could not withdraw the statements because the cases had been dismissed and were closed.
Damages Claim: The court correctly rejected Conomy’s claim for damages under R.C. 2731.11, as the statute only provides for damages if the relator is successful in obtaining a writ. Because his claims for writs of mandamus were dismissed, Conomy was not entitled to damages.
Motions Filed by Conomy
During the appeal, Conomy filed several motions, all of which were denied by the Supreme Court:
* Motion to Disqualify Appellees’ Counsel: Conomy argued that the court was financially conflicted due to the Ohio Judges’ Professional Liability Self-Insurance Program funding the defense. The court found the motion not well-taken and denied it, as Conomy had not established any conflict of interest.
* Motion for Referral to Special Master: Conomy alleged another conflict of interest and requested that the appeal be referred to a special master. The court denied this motion, citing that the motion did not provide a mechanism for the court to refer a matter to a special master.
* Motion to Strike Affidavits: Conomy moved to strike affidavits submitted by appellees’ counsel. The court denied this motion, finding that the affidavits did not concern an appealed issue.
* Motion for Show-Cause Order: Conomy argued that appellees misled the court. The court denied the motion, finding it meritless.
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the limitations on the use of mandamus and procedendo, particularly when judicial discretion is involved or when alternative legal remedies are available. The court’s rulings on Conomy’s motions further clarified the standards for disqualification of counsel and the procedures for appealing cases.