State ex rel. Gregley v. Friedman
2011 Ohio 2293
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Gregley filed a procedendo action to compel Judge Friedman to impose postrelease control in State v. Gregley (CR-358368).
- Friedman moved for summary judgment on adequate remedy at law; Gregley opposed.
- The sentencing in 1998 included postrelease control language and consecutive life terms and related sentences.
- Gregley challenged postrelease control issues in a motion for resentencing but did not appeal the denial.
- Ohio Supreme Court decisions (Fischer, Bezak, Tucker, Pruitt) address when extraordinary writs are proper for postrelease-control errors.
- The court held Gregley had an adequate remedy at law via direct appeal, precluding a writ of procedendo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether writ of procedendo is available when there is an adequate remedy at law | Gregley relied on extraordinary writ to force action | Adequate remedy via direct appeal exists | No; writ denied due to adequate remedy at law |
| Whether postrelease-control errors can be remedied by writ or appeal | Errors require writ to correct postrelease control | Errors are remedied on appeal per Fischer/Tucker | Writ not available; appeal proper for postrelease-control issues |
| Effect of sentencing entry language on notice of postrelease control | Incomplete references allow writ relief | Notice given by language; remedy via appeal | Notice adequate; writ not appropriate |
| Impact of Gregley’s motion for resentencing on procedural posture | Resolution via writ is necessary | Did not pursue adequate remedy after denial | Resentencing issues remain appealable, not rectifiable by writ |
| Whether Carnail controls despite distinguishable facts | Carnail supports writ relief | Distinguishable; adequate remedy exists | Carnail distinguishable; writ not proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (postrelease-control errors limited to void portion and remand for proper imposition)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (reconsidered postrelease-control imposition standards)
- State ex rel. Pruitt v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 125 Ohio St.3d 402 (2010-Ohio-1808) (sentencing-entry notice suffices to raise errors on appeal)
- State ex rel. Tucker v. Forchione, 2010-Ohio-6291 (2010) (precludes mandamus for postrelease-control errors when notice exists)
- Yee v. Erie Cty. Sheriff's Dept., 51 Ohio St.3d 43 (1990) (definition of procedendo; not to control judgment content)
- State ex rel. Watkins v. Eighth Dist. Court of Appeals, 1998-Ohio-190 (1998) (procedendo limitations; remedies proper via direct appeal)
- State ex rel. Carnail v. McCormick, 126 Ohio St.3d 124 (2010-Ohio-2671) (distinguishable; writ not proper where adequate remedy exists)