State ex rel. Peterson v. McClelland (Slip Opinion)
150 Ohio St. 3d 450
Ohio2017Background
- Damien L. Peterson was convicted in 2006 of aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and having a weapon while under disability and received a 12-year sentence.
- In 2014 Judge Robert C. McClelland granted Peterson judicial release and placed him on two years of community control.
- The state appealed; in March 2015 the Eighth District reversed because the trial court failed to make the R.C. 2929.20(J) findings and remanded for further proceedings.
- On May 8, 2015 the trial court revoked Peterson’s judicial release, ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence, and entered that the appellate order was moot because Peterson violated community-control terms.
- Peterson sought extraordinary relief (mandamus and prohibition) in this court and in the court of appeals, arguing the revocation was void for noncompliance with the appellate mandate.
- The court of appeals denied relief by summary judgment; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is available to compel the trial judge to follow the appellate decision and vacate the revocation | Peterson: He has a clear right and no adequate remedy because the trial court ignored the appellate mandate, rendering the revocation void | Judge McClelland: Prior mandamus petition in this court sought the same relief; res judicata bars repeat mandamus; trial court retained jurisdiction | Denied—mandamus claim barred by res judicata |
| Whether prohibition lies to prevent the judge from exercising jurisdiction in the criminal case | Peterson: Judge exceeded jurisdiction by disregarding the remand and revoking release | Judge McClelland: Trial court had jurisdiction over sentencing and judicial-release revocation; appellate remand did not prohibit revocation | Denied—judge did not exceed jurisdiction; prohibition not warranted |
| Whether the appellate court’s remand required reimposition of judicial release | Peterson: The law-of-the-case and mandate required a particular result (i.e., reinstatement) | Judge McClelland: The appellate court reversed the grant for lack of required findings and remanded for further proceedings; it did not mandate reimposition | Held—remand did not require reimposition; trial court acted within jurisdiction in revoking release |
| Whether an adequate remedy at law exists (appeal) | Peterson: Extraordinary writ is needed because lower court ignored mandate | State/Judge: Appeal is an adequate remedy to contest revocation | Held—appeal is an adequate remedy; prohibition and mandamus are improper remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (establishes mandamus elements and burden of proof)
- State ex rel. Franks v. Cosgrove, 135 Ohio St.3d 249 (res judicata bars relitigation of mandamus claims)
- State ex rel. Plant v. Cosgrove, 119 Ohio St.3d 264 (trial court with general jurisdiction may determine its own jurisdiction; appeal is adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Pruitt v. Donnelly, 129 Ohio St.3d 498 (trial court retains jurisdiction over sentencing and judicial-release matters)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (law-of-the-case doctrine limits trial courts to following appellate mandates)
- Shoop v. State, 144 Ohio St.3d 374 (appeal generally is an adequate remedy that precludes extraordinary writs)