State ex rel. Ford v. Adm. Judge of Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas
2013 Ohio 4197
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Ford, a pro se inmate, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel notification of the December 22, 2009 denial of his motion to withdraw a no contest plea in CR-464709-A.
- Ford designated CR-469583 in his petition but the petition did not seek relief in that case.
- The petition challenges the trial court’s judgment entry denying the motion to withdraw the no contest plea.
- The respondent moves for summary judgment; Ford does not oppose the motion.
- The court holds Civ.R. 58(B) does not apply to criminal judgments and imposes no Civ.R. 58(B) duty on the respondent; Crim.R. 32(C) requires entry on the journal; App.R. 5(A) provides an adequate remedy; writ denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is proper to compel Civ.R. 58(B) notification. | Ford argues Civ.R. 58(B) imposes a duty on the administrative judge to endorse notice. | respondent contends Civ.R. 58(B) applies to civil, not criminal judgments, and no duty exists here. | No mandamus; Civ.R. 58(B) not applicable. |
| Whether the proper respondent and case are correctly identified. | Ford names the administrative judge as respondent in CR-464709-A. | CR-464709-A is assigned to a different judge; Civ.R. 58(B) concerns, and the petition targets the wrong respondent. | Petition properly denied for lack of proper respondent. |
| Whether Civ.R. 58(B) applies to criminal judgments. | Ford relies on Civ.R. 58(B) to require service endorsement on the judgment. | Civ.R. 58(B) applies to civil judgments only. | Civ.R. 58(B) does not apply to criminal judgments. |
| Whether there is an adequate remedy at law to challenge the judgment. | Ford seeks mandamus relief beyond direct appellate avenues. | Crim.R. 32(C) and App.R. 5(A) provide adequate remedies and delays are allowed for criminal appeals. | Adequate remedy exists; mandamus unavailable. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Tran v. McGrath, 78 Ohio St.3d 45 (1997) (mandamus elements require clear legal right and duty and lack of adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Hayes v. Winkler, 131 Ohio St.3d 66 (2011) (delayed appeals are an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law)
- State v. McKinney v. Defiance Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 123 Ohio St.3d 153 (2009) (recognizes adequate remedy exists via appellate processes; res judicata considerations in postconviction contexts)