State ex rel. Harris v. Rothgery
2025 Ohio 1299
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- Isaiah Harris was convicted in Lorain County in May 2009 and appealed his convictions in June 2009.
- While Harris’ appeal was pending, Judge Rothgery issued a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry in December 2009 to correct the postrelease control portion of Harris’ sentence.
- Harris alleged the original sentencing order was void due to improper postrelease control notice and claimed the nunc pro tunc entry was also void (entered during an appeal, without a resentencing hearing).
- Harris accused Judge Rothgery and appellate judges of conspiring to violate his due process rights by amending the sentence during the appeal.
- Harris sought writs of mandamus (to compel the judge to vacate and resentence) and prohibition (to prevent/correct unauthorized judicial acts).
- The respondent, Judge Rothgery, moved to dismiss Harris’ complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the May 2009 sentencing entry was void | Sentencing was invalid due to improper postrelease control. | Errors render sentence voidable, not void. | Sentence was voidable, not void—no collateral challenge. |
| Whether nunc pro tunc entry was void due to appeal pending | Nunc pro tunc entry invalid as it occurred during appeal. | Nunc pro tunc permissible any time; adequate remedy available. | Harris had remedy at law; entry not void. |
| Entitlement to writ of mandamus | Judge must vacate and resentence; no adequate legal remedy. | Legal remedies were available; no clear right/duty. | Not entitled—requirements for writ not satisfied. |
| Entitlement to writ of prohibition to correct prior acts | Judge acted without jurisdiction; writ should undo action. | Judge had jurisdiction at all times. | Not entitled—no patent lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Seikbert v. Wilkinson, 69 Ohio St.3d 489 (explains motion to dismiss standard on mandamus/prohibition)
- State v. Harper, 2020-Ohio-2913 (error in postrelease control makes judgment voidable, not void)
- State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner, 74 Ohio St.3d 158 (explains purpose and process for nunc pro tunc orders)
- State ex rel. Serv. Emp. Internatl. Union, Dist. 925 v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 81 Ohio St.3d 173 (mandamus requirements)
- State ex rel. Edward Smith Corp. v. Marsh, 2024-Ohio-201 (prohibition writ requirements)