2011 Ohio 2023
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Lockhart filed a petition for writ of mandamus/procedendo to compel a Crim.R. 32 sentencing entry.
- Respondent Whitney is the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas judge; Respondent moved to dismiss as moot and for failure to state a claim.
- Relator was sentenced on October 16, 2006; appeal affirmed January 9, 2008; Ohio Supreme Court declined further review.
- Trial court issued a Nunc Pro Tunc sentencing entry on December 17, 2009 to conform with State v. Baker.
- Relator sought leave to file a delayed appeal of the December 17, 2009 entry, claiming it was not final or Crim.R. 32 compliant.
- Relator’s “Motion to Correct Status of Void Sentencing Entry” remained pending when this mandamus petition was filed; court held petition moot since a final, appealable order had been issued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mandamus/procedendo petition is moot. | Lockhart | Whitney | Moot; final order issued |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. McAllister v. Smith, 119 Ohio St.3d 163 (2008 Ohio-3881) (mandamus to compel Crim.R. 32 compliance where final order exists)
- State ex rel. Culgan v. Medina Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 119 Ohio St.3d 535 (2008-Ohio-4609) (mandamus/procedendo to compel action on final order)
- State ex rel. Pruitt v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 125 Ohio St.3d 402 (2010) (availability of mandamus/procedendo when final order exists)
- State ex rel. Grove v. Nadel, 84 Ohio St.3d 252 (1998) (mandamus will not compel performance of already performed duty)
- State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen, 88 Ohio St.3d 313 (2000) (mandamus limits when duty has been performed)