State ex rel. Albourque v. Terry, 947 N.E.2d 169

State ex rel. Albourque seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Terry to issue a new sentencing entry conforming to Crim.R. 32(C).
Judge Terry filed an “Application for Reconsideration” which the court of appeals treated as a Civ.R. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment.
The 2006 sentencing entry on March 21, 2006 included the court’s findings, the sentence, the judge’s signature, and the journalization stamp; it involved Count 5 of the indictment, which allegedly charged a codefendant, not Albourque.
The appellate court had previously held the 2006 order was not final and appealable because it failed to dispose of Count 5.
The judge later submitted with his Civ.R. 60(B) motion a certified indictment showing Count 5 charged a codefendant, not Albourque.
The Supreme Court held that the March 21, 2006 entry complied with Crim.R. 32(C), was final and appealable, and that mandamus relief was not warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Crim.R. 32(C) compliance	Albourque argues 2006 entry failed to dispose Count 5.	Terry argues entry complied and was final.	Compliant; final and appealable.
Appellate treatment of reconsideration as Civ.R. 60(B)	Relator contends Rule 26(A) applicability was misapplied; improper substitute for appeal.	Court properly treated as Civ.R. 60(B) relief.	Court did not abuse discretion; proper treatment.
Mandamus relief viability	Writ warranted to require a proper sentencing entry.	Entry was proper and mandamus not appropriate.	Writ denied; no mandamus relief.

Eubank v. Anderson, 119 Ohio St.3d 349 (2008-Ohio-4477) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Civ.R. 60(B) appeals)
Dzina v. Celebrezze, 108 Ohio St.3d 385 (2006-Ohio-1195) (We cannot add material to record on appeal)
Manuel v. Stenson, 126 Ohio St.3d 52 (2010-Ohio-2673) (Civ.R. 60(B) not substitute for timely appeal)
Cunningham v. Lindeman, 126 Ohio St.3d 481 (2010-Ohio-4388) (Civ.R. 60(B) relief standard; finality of entry)