Frett v. State
2013 Ohio 5441
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Frett filed mandamus and procedendo petitions in two appeals challenging underlying criminal cases and resentencing motions.
- The underlying cases involved multiple rape, kidnapping, and related counts in CR-543131, CR-544745, and CR-552762.
- Frett pleaded guilty to specified counts; remaining counts were nolled; sentences were 11 years per rape count, later reduced on direct appeal.
- This court previously modified Frett’s sentence to 10 years per rape count and remanded to correct the sentencing entry.
- Respondents moved for summary judgment; Frett filed a cross-motion; the two appeals were consolidated for briefing.
- The court denies the writs and Frett’s requested relief as moot or procedurally deficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caption and respondent identity defect | Frett seeks mandamus; caption misidentified state as respondent. | Improper caption/prejudice require dismissal. | Writ denied for improper caption. |
| Affidavit and indigency compliance | Relator compliance with Loc.App.R. 45 and RC 2969.25(C) required. | Deficiency warrants denial of mandamus and indigency status. | Mandamus denied; indigency not recognized. |
| Mootness of resentencing rulings | Requests for resentencing rulings remain live. | Moot since journal entries denying resentencing are attached. | Moot to the extent addressing resentencing; no relief granted. |
| Adequate remedy at law and lack of jurisdictional error | Challenging jury waiver and sentencing procedure; may have merit. | Martin v. Maxwell controls; guilty plea precludes 2945.05 issues; adequate remedy via appeal. | Relief not available; writ denied. |
| General merit of extraordinary writ and discretionary authority | Writ sought to compel court action. | Mandamus is extraordinary and not a substitute for appeal; duty not clearly established. | Writ denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus, 33 Ohio St.3d 118 (1987) (mandamus standards; discretion in extraordinary writs)
- State ex rel. Keenan v. Calabrese, 69 Ohio St.3d 176 (1994) (mandamus limits; not substitute for appeal)
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967) (mandamus scope for agency actions)
- State ex rel. Jerninghan v. Gaughan, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 6227 (1994) ((note: non-official reporter; excluded))
- State ex rel. Tran v. McGrath, 78 Ohio St.3d 45 (1997) (mandamus when no adequate remedy at law)
- State ex rel. Taylor v. Glasser, 50 Ohio St.2d 165 (1977) (extraordinary remedy limitations)
- State ex rel. Shafer v. Ohio Turnpike Comm., 159 Ohio St. 581 (1953) (limits of mandamus)
- Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty., 173 Ohio St. 226 (1962) (caption and procedural defects can justify dismissal)
- Martin v. Maxwell, 175 Ohio St. 147 (1963) (written jury waiver not required for guilty pleas)
- State v. Abney, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84190 (2006-Ohio-273) (R.C. 2945.05 applicability to guilty pleas)
- Pamer v. Collier, 108 Ohio St.3d 492 (2006-Ohio-1507) (inmate accounting requirements; indigency)
- Hazel v. Knab, 120 Ohio St.2d 22 (2011-Ohio-4608) (indigent filing requirements)
- Jaffal v. Calabrese, 105 Ohio St.3d 440 (2005-Ohio-2591) (adequate remedy via appeal; writ not available)
- Martin v. Maxwell, 175 Ohio St. 147 (1963) (jury-trial waiver rules during guilty pleas)