2013 Ohio 5596
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Jimmy Carter (relator) sought a writ of mandamus/procedendo directing Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold to issue a new, Crim.R. 32–compliant final judgment in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-501137.
- Jury convicted Carter (Dec. 7, 2007) of attempted kidnapping (Count 1) with multiple specifications and criminal child enticement (Count 4); acquitted on possession of criminal tools (Count 3).
- This court affirmed convictions for Count 1 and Count 4 but vacated Count 2 (structurally defective) in 2009; Judge Saffold dismissed Count 2 on Oct. 14, 2009.
- Carter argued the Dec. 11, 2007 sentencing entry failed to address every specification (thus not final/appealable) and that the Oct. 1, 2009 dismissal entry failed to comply with State v. Baker by omitting the fact of conviction and sentence.
- The court found the Dec. 11, 2007 entry was a final, appealable order (it included conviction, sentence, judge’s signature, and journal stamp) and held that failure to address specifications is a sentencing error for appeal, not a defect rendering the entry nonfinal.
- Court granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment, denied the writ, and assessed costs to Carter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Dec. 11, 2007 sentencing entry was a final, appealable order under Crim.R. 32 | Carter: Entry not Crim.R. 32–compliant because it did not address each specification, so not final | Judge Saffold: Entry contained conviction, sentence, signature, and journal stamp — thus final | Court: Entry was final and appealable (meets Lester criteria); omissions as to specifications are sentencing errors, not nonfinality |
| Whether dismissal/journal entry for Count 2 had to include the fact of conviction and sentence per State v. Baker | Carter: Oct. 1, 2009 dismissal entry failed Baker by not stating conviction and sentence | Judge Saffold: Dismissal did not require restating conviction/sentence to be valid; sentencing entry already set those out | Court: Carter not entitled to writ; Baker and related holdings do not require re‑stating means of exoneration or render the entries nonfinal; failure to address specs is remedial on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163 (addresses required content of sentencing/journal entries)
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142 (sets forth what makes a sentencing entry final and appealable)
- State ex rel. Jones v. Ansted, 131 Ohio St.3d 125, 2012-Ohio-109, 961 N.E.2d 192 (failure to address specifications is a sentencing error for appeal)
- State ex rel. Cunningham v. Lindeman, 126 Ohio St.3d 481, 2010-Ohio-4388, 935 N.E.2d 393 (same principle regarding specifications and finality)
- State ex rel. Davis v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 127 Ohio St.3d 29, 2010-Ohio-4728, 936 N.E.2d 41 (trial court not required to state means of exoneration in sentencing entry)