2014 Ohio 4557
Ohio2014Background
- Relator Clayton Gopp filed a motion in the trial court to vacate his criminal judgment and withdraw his guilty plea; Judge Mark K. Wiest denied the motion on May 14, 2013.
- Instead of appealing that denial, Gopp filed a new petition in the court of appeals seeking writs of mandamus and procedendo compelling Judge Wiest to issue a new sentencing entry or otherwise proceed.
- The court of appeals granted Judge Wiest’s motion to dismiss Gopp’s petition.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed whether Gopp was entitled to mandamus or procedendo relief.
- Central legal question: whether Gopp lacked an adequate remedy at law (a prerequisite for mandamus or procedendo) given his option to appeal the denial of his motion to vacate.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding Gopp had an adequate remedy by appeal and therefore was not entitled to the writs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus may compel the trial judge to issue a new sentencing entry | Gopp argued the judge had a duty to correct the sentencing entry and that extraordinary relief was necessary | Judge Wiest argued Gopp had an adequate remedy by appeal from the denial of his motion to vacate | Denied — mandamus denied because an adequate remedy at law existed |
| Whether procedendo is appropriate to force the court to proceed to judgment | Gopp argued the court refused or delayed entering proper judgment and procedendo was warranted | Wiest argued no refusal or delay requiring procedendo and that appeal was the proper remedy | Denied — procedendo not available where an adequate appellate remedy exists |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (elements for mandamus include clear right, clear duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (1995) (elements for procedendo and requirement of no adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 73 Ohio St.3d 180 (1995) (procedendo proper when a court refuses to enter judgment or unnecessarily delays)