State ex rel. Bradford v. Dinkelacker (Slip Opinion)
149 Ohio St. 3d 683
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Appellant Pele K. Bradford sought a writ of mandamus directing Judge Patrick T. Dinkelacker to vacate a sentence as void and to resentence him according to the jury verdict.
- Mandamus requires showing a clear legal right to relief, a clear legal duty by the judge, and lack of an adequate remedy at law.
- Bradford contended the trial court effectively amended the aggravated-murder verdict form by entering judgment under R.C. 2903.01(A) rather than (B), violating his jury-trial rights.
- In 2015 Bradford filed a Crim.R. 36 motion to correct the judgment entry; the trial court denied it and Bradford appealed to the First District.
- The First District affirmed, finding the trial court’s entry effectively corrected the verdict form and did not abuse its discretion; applicable sentences under divisions (A) and (B) are the same.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the court of appeals’ dismissal of the mandamus petition, finding Bradford had an adequate remedy by appeal and his mandamus claim asserted a sentencing error rather than a jurisdictional defect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to vacate sentence as void based on alleged alteration of verdict form | Bradford: trial court amended the verdict form and entered judgment under the wrong statutory division, violating jury-trial rights and rendering sentence void | Judge Dinkelacker: the issue is a sentencing/verdict-form error subject to correction and review on appeal; no jurisdictional defect | Denied — mandamus improper because the claim is a sentencing error and Bradford had an adequate remedy by appeal |
| Whether Crim.R. 36 correction or trial-court action cured the alleged verdict-form error | Bradford: the judgment entry is incorrect and must be vacated | Trial court/First Dist.: the court’s entry effectively corrected the verdict form under Crim.R. 36 and Davie, without demonstrable prejudice | Held that the trial court’s correction was permissible and not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether absence of appellee brief warrants reversal under S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07(B) | Bradford: reversal warranted because Judge Dinkelacker did not file a brief | State/Supreme Court: the rule permits reversal only if appellant’s brief reasonably appears to sustain reversal | Denied — Bradford’s brief did not reasonably appear to sustain reversal |
| Whether sentencing differed between R.C. 2903.01(A) and (B) such that error was prejudicial | Bradford: alleged substantive difference in convictions | Respondent/OP: statutes prescribe same applicable sentences for (A) and (B) | Held that the sentences are the same, so no substantive prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (mandamus standards: clear right, clear duty, adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Pruitt v. Donnelly, 129 Ohio St.3d 498 (2011) (sentencing errors do not ipso facto deprive court of jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Plant v. Cosgrove, 119 Ohio St.3d 264 (2008) (appeal is an adequate remedy to contest jurisdictional determinations)
- Shoop v. State, 144 Ohio St.3d 374 (2015) (appeal generally an adequate remedy precluding mandamus)
- State v. Davie, 80 Ohio St.3d 311 (1997) (trial court may correct verdict-form wording post-discharge if not demonstrably prejudicial)
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967) (principle that an adequate legal remedy generally precludes extraordinary writ relief)