State ex rel. Bonner v. Serrott (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 1450

In 1993 Bonner was convicted of aggravated murder (with firearm specification), felonious assault (with firearm specification), and having a weapon while under disability; the appellate court modified and remanded, reducing aggravated murder to murder and vacating/reversing other parts.
On remand in 1995 the trial court entered a modified judgment imposing sentences but the entry omitted reference to the three-year firearm specification attached to the murder conviction.
In 2014 Bonner moved the trial court for a final, appealable order under Crim.R. 32(C); the trial court denied the motion and the Tenth District found the modified 1995 entry nonfinal but dismissed the appeal as nonfinal.
In 2015 the trial court sua sponte issued a new judgment entry that included all sentences (including the three-year firearm specification); Bonner did not appeal that entry.
In 2018 Bonner filed an original action seeking writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel a Crim.R. 32(C)-compliant judgment; the court of appeals dismissed on Civ.R. 12(B)(6), concluding Bonner had an adequate remedy at law.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding that when a conviction entry does not comply with Crim.R. 32(C) the defendant has an adequate remedy by moving the trial court for a revised sentencing entry and then appealing a denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bonner is entitled to mandamus/procedendo to compel a Crim.R.32(C)-compliant judgment	Bonner: 2015 judgment is not a final, appealable order; only a writ will produce a compliant judgment	Judge Serrott/State: Bonner had an adequate remedy at law and thus mandamus/procedendo is improper	Court: Bonner had an adequate remedy — move for a revised sentencing entry in trial court and appeal a denial; writs denied
Whether dismissal under Civ.R.12(B)(6) was appropriate	Bonner: original action was necessary because trial court entry is nonfinal	State: dismissal proper because adequate legal remedies existed (and Bonner could have appealed the 2015 entry)	Court: dismissal affirmed; petition fails as a matter of law because of adequate remedy availability

State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2008) (Crim.R.32(C) requires entries to include statutorily mandated terms)
State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (Crim.R.32(C) and sentencing-entry requirements analyzed)
McAllister v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 163 (2008) (defendant claiming noncompliant judgment has adequate remedy by motion for revised sentencing entry)
State ex rel. Daniels v. Russo, 156 Ohio St.3d 143 (2018) (if trial court denies motion for revised entry, defendant may appeal)
State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (elements for mandamus; includes adequate-remedy requirement)
State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530 (1999) (elements for procedendo; includes adequate-remedy requirement)