2019 Ohio 4228
Ohio2019Background:
- In 2008 a jury convicted Shane L. Green of rape of a child under 13 and gross sexual imposition; the trial court imposed a definite term of life for the rape, a consecutive 5-year term, and five years of postrelease control; the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Green filed a 2015 postconviction petition arguing improper postrelease-control notice and that a definite life term was invalid; the trial court denied relief and the court of appeals affirmed, applying res judicata to the sentencing challenge.
- In September 2018 Green sought a writ of mandamus in the Fifth District to compel Judge Richard Wetzel to resentence him, claiming his sentence was void for (1) imposition of a definite life term and (2) inadequate postrelease-control notification.
- The court of appeals granted a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss the mandamus complaint, reasoning res judicata barred both claims; Green appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
- The Ohio Supreme Court held that, although res judicata is an affirmative defense and not properly raised via Civ.R. 12(B)(6), Green nevertheless had an adequate remedy at law (direct appeal) for both sentencing claims, so mandamus relief was unavailable; the dismissal was affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Green) | Defendant's Argument (Wetzel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a definite term of life is an invalid sentence for rape of a child and thus voidable by mandamus | Life term is not a valid definite sentence for this offense and thus void; resentencing required | Sentencing error is reviewable on direct appeal; mandamus is not appropriate | Denied — sentencing error is not remediable by mandamus because Green had an adequate remedy by direct appeal |
| Whether inadequate postrelease-control notification made the sentence nonfinal and subject to mandamus | Trial court failed to impose/notify mandatory postrelease control for both counts, so entry is not final and needs correction by mandamus | Appellate review can correct postrelease-control omission; omission does not deprive appellate jurisdiction | Denied — omission is correctable on appeal; Green had an adequate remedy at law |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. Morris, 62 Ohio St.3d 107, 579 N.E.2d 702 (1991) (res judicata is an affirmative defense and may not be raised by motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12[B][6])
- Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409, 856 N.E.2d 966 (2006) (standards for dismissal under Civ.R. 12[B][6] in mandamus actions)
- McKinney v. Schmenk, 152 Ohio St.3d 70, 92 N.E.3d 871 (2017) (de novo review for Civ.R. 12[B][6] dismissals)
- Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 960 N.E.2d 452 (2012) (elements required to obtain writ of mandamus)
- Ridenour v. O'Connell, 147 Ohio St.3d 351, 65 N.E.3d 742 (2016) (sentencing errors generally not remediable by extraordinary writ; direct appeal is adequate remedy)
- Hunter v. Binette, 154 Ohio St.3d 508, 116 N.E.3d 121 (2018) (reaffirming that direct appeal is an adequate remedy for sentencing challenges)
- Jackson v. Johnson, 135 Ohio St.3d 364, 986 N.E.2d 989 (2013) (postconviction proceedings are distinct from direct appeal for raising sentencing claims)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 942 N.E.2d 332 (2010) (omission of mandatory postrelease control from sentencing entry does not render judgment nonfinal; appellate court may correct the error)