State ex rel. Allen v. Goulding (Slip Opinion)
126 N.E.3d 1104
Ohio2019Background
- Ronald S. Allen Jr. was convicted of murder in 1997 and sentenced to 15 years to life.
- In 2011 Allen moved to correct the sentencing entry, arguing the manner of conviction was omitted and that postrelease control was improperly imposed.
- The trial court issued nunc pro tunc entries: it added manner-of-conviction language and removed postrelease-control language, but an August 24, 2011 nunc pro tunc entry mistakenly listed the sentencing-hearing date as August 23, 2011 (the actual hearing was in 1997).
- The Sixth District affirmed the nunc pro tunc corrections and declined to require a new sentencing hearing to correct the clerical date error.
- Allen filed a mandamus action in the Sixth District seeking an order compelling the trial judge to issue a corrected, final appealable order; the court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the petition.
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding Allen failed to show a clear legal right to the requested relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an original sentencing entry that included postrelease control for murder rendered the judgment void and required de novo resentencing | Allen: inclusion of postrelease control in the 1997 entry voids the sentence and entitles him to a new sentencing hearing | Judge: the 2011 nunc pro tunc entries removed postrelease control; deleting (not adding) a sanction does not require de novo resentencing | Held: Deleting an erroneous postrelease-control provision is not equivalent to adding punishment; nunc pro tunc correction was proper and de novo resentencing was not required |
| Whether the wrong date in the 2011 nunc pro tunc entry is a sentencing error requiring a new hearing | Allen: the incorrect date is a sentencing error, not clerical | Judge: the court retains jurisdiction to correct clerical errors; wrong date is clerical and correctable by nunc pro tunc or Crim.R. 36 | Held: Incorrect date is a clerical error apparent on the record and may be corrected; no new sentencing hearing required |
| Whether Allen has a clear legal right to mandamus relief compelling a corrected ruling | Allen: seeks a corrected final, appealable order under Baker | Judge/appellee: prior proceedings and nunc pro tunc entries cured the defects; no clear right to relief | Held: Allen failed to show a clear legal right or that the judge had a clear duty to provide the relief; mandamus denied |
| Whether the mandamus action is barred by res judicata (concurring opinion) | Allen: continues to press that no final, appealable order was issued | Judge/concurring justices: prior appeals and rulings are final and foreclose relitigation | Held (concurring): the claim is barred by res judicata; court need not reach the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (mandamus requirements: clear legal right, clear legal duty, no adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Williams v. Trim, 145 Ohio St.3d 204 (2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard for court of appeals dismissals of mandamus petitions)
- State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74 (1984) (resentencing that adds mandatory prison requires further proceedings)
- State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (2008) (addressing trial court resentencing to add postrelease control)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007) (adding punishment at resentencing requires de novo proceedings)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (failure to impose postrelease control renders only that portion void; limited correction permitted)
- State ex rel. Peoples v. Johnson, 152 Ohio St.3d 418 (2017) (extraordinary writs cannot be used to relitigate issues already finally decided)
- State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Gwin, 64 Ohio St.3d 245 (1992) (mandamus not a substitute for an otherwise barred second appeal)