Collins v. Sweeney
2016 Ohio 1171
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Kenyatta Collins pleaded guilty in Mahoning C.P. to aggravated robbery, attempted murder, and related firearm specifications; sentenced to 8 years in 2014 and did not appeal.
- On March 11, 2015, Collins filed a pro se motion in the trial court to vacate his attempted murder conviction, arguing attempted murder (as attempted felony murder) is not a cognizable offense under State v. Nolan.
- The trial court did not rule on Collins’s motion for over a year.
- Collins sought an extraordinary writ in the Seventh District Court of Appeals requesting the trial judge be compelled to rule (styled as a combined petition for mandamus and habeas corpus).
- The judge/respondent moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing Collins had an adequate remedy by direct appeal.
- The Court of Appeals found the appeal argument misplaced, concluded the trial court had unduly delayed ruling, granted mandamus to compel a ruling, and dismissed the habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court must be compelled to rule on Collins’s March 11, 2015 motion | Collins: Sup.R. 40(A)(3) (120-day rule) creates a duty; court should be compelled to rule | Respondent: Collins had an adequate remedy by direct appeal; mandamus inappropriate | Court: Grant mandamus — trial court unreasonably delayed ruling beyond 120 days; compel judge to rule |
| Whether Sup.R. 40(A)(3) creates a privately enforceable right | Collins: Rule imposes mandatory 120-day deadline | Respondent: Rule not enforceable; appeal available | Court: Sup.R. 40(A)(3) does not itself create an enforceable right, but it guides whether delay is undue for mandamus purposes; here delay was undue |
| Whether the habeas corpus petition could proceed in this district | Collins: Filed combined petition | Respondent: (implicit) improper venue | Court: Dismiss habeas for lack of jurisdiction (collateral facility outside this court’s territorial jurisdiction) |
| Whether an adequate remedy at law exists precluding extraordinary writ | Collins: No adequate remedy because the trial court hasn't ruled | Respondent: Adequate remedy via direct appeal | Court: Appeal is not an adequate remedy to force a trial court to rule; extraordinary writ available to compel ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nolan, 25 N.E.3d 1016 (Ohio 2014) (held attempted felony murder is not a cognizable crime in Ohio)
- State ex rel. Culgan v. Collier, 988 N.E.2d 564 (Ohio 2013) (Sup.R. 40(A)(3) does not create a private right but guides whether delay is undue for mandamus/procedendo)
- State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 650 N.E.2d 899 (Ohio 1995) (elements for mandamus to compel a court to proceed)
- State ex rel. Taxpayers for Westerville Schools v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 976 N.E.2d 890 (Ohio 2012) (standards for mandamus relief)
- State ex rel. Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 652 N.E.2d 742 (Ohio 1995) (procedendo proper where court refuses or unnecessarily delays entering judgment)