2016 Ohio 1559
Ohio2016Background
- Nye was convicted of a minor-misdemeanor city ordinance violation; the magistrate issued a decision and the trial judge (Coates) entered orders adopting the magistrate and imposing a $50 fine, but no separate Crim.R. 32(C) judgment entry showing a finding of guilt and sentence appeared in the record.
- Nye filed a pro se appeal; the appeals court questioned jurisdiction for lack of a final, appealable order and the appeal was later dismissed for failure to prosecute.
- Nye then filed a procedendo petition in the court of appeals seeking (1) an order compelling the magistrate to issue a Crim.R. 19(D)-compliant decision and (2) an order compelling Judge Coates to enter a final, appealable judgment and to grant him an extension to file objections to the magistrate.
- The court of appeals granted a writ of procedendo directed to Judge Coates, ordering entry of a final, appealable order in conformity with Crim.R. 32(C); it did not decide the Crim.R. 19(D) magistrate-compliance claim.
- Judge Coates then filed a new Crim.R. 32(C)-compliant order. Nye appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which dismissed the appeal as moot because Nye received the relief he sought and has an adequate remedy by appeal to raise any magistrate-related objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court must enter a separate Crim.R. 32(C) judgment to create a final, appealable order | Nye: Judge Coates must enter a separate judgment conforming to Crim.R. 32(C) because prior entries did not constitute a final, appealable order | Coates: No additional judgment entry was required beyond the orders already filed | Court of appeals: Trial court must enter a Crim.R. 32(C) judgment; Coates subsequently did so; Supreme Court dismissed appeal as moot |
| Whether the magistrate must be ordered to issue a decision that complies with Crim.R. 19(D) | Nye: Magistrate’s decision did not satisfy Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii) and must be corrected | Coates: (Implicit) No relief against the magistrate was proper in the procedendo petition naming only the judge | Supreme Court: Relief against the magistrate cannot issue because the magistrate was not named; objections may be raised on appeal |
| Whether procedendo is available when a final order was not entered immediately | Nye: Writ of procedendo was proper to compel entry of a final order before appeal | Coates: The judge did not refuse to act; no writ should issue | Court of appeals granted writ; after entry was made, Supreme Court found the issue moot because entry was provided |
| Whether an appeal remains an adequate remedy precluding procedendo or mandamus | Nye: Needed procedendo to secure extension and rectification before appeal | Coates: An appeal is adequate to raise objections to magistrate’s decision | Supreme Court: Appeal is an adequate remedy; procedendo is unavailable now that a final order exists |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (standard for procedendo)
- State ex rel. Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 73 Ohio St.3d 180 (procedendo proper when court refuses or delays entry of judgment)
- State ex rel. Crabtree v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Health, 77 Ohio St.3d 247 (appeal is an adequate remedy precluding extraordinary writ)
- State ex rel. Sevayega v. McMonagle, 122 Ohio St.3d 54 (appeal precludes mandamus/procedendo when adequate)
- State ex rel. Ward v. Reed, 141 Ohio St.3d 50 (reaffirming that appeal is adequate remedy to preclude extraordinary writ)