State ex rel. Priest v. Dankof (Slip Opinion)
143 Ohio St. 3d 82
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Gregory L. Priest was convicted of two felonies and appealed to the Montgomery County Court of Appeals in August 2010.
- The court of appeals questioned whether the trial court’s sentencing entry complied with R.C. 2505.02 and Crim.R. 32(C) under State v. Baker, and ordered Priest to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order.
- Priest returned to the trial court and obtained a January 14, 2011 nunc pro tunc entry (signed by Judge Wiseman) stating the conviction resulted from jury guilty verdicts; the court of appeals accepted this correction and proceeded with the appeal.
- The court of appeals ultimately affirmed Priest’s conviction; the Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction on further appeal.
- Priest then filed a mandamus action seeking to compel Judge Steven K. Dankof (successor judge) to sign the nunc pro tunc entry, arguing Judge Wiseman lacked authority to sign it and challenging the sufficiency/appealability of the entries.
- The court of appeals granted Judge Dankof’s motion to dismiss; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed because Priest had an adequate remedy by appeal and thus was not entitled to mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is proper to compel successor judge to sign nunc pro tunc entry | Priest: Judge Wiseman lacked authority to sign the nunc pro tunc; successor must sign | Dankof: Mandamus improper because alleged defects could have been raised on direct appeal | Mandamus denied — appeal was an adequate remedy, so no writ |
| Whether original August 24, 2010 entry or Jan. 14, 2011 nunc pro tunc entry were appealable | Priest: Entries were flawed and not final/appealable | Respondent: Nunc pro tunc corrected any defect, making order final and appealable | Court found the nunc pro tunc cured any defect; appeal was properly entertained |
| Whether relator demonstrated clear legal right and respondent a clear duty to act | Priest: Entitled to court action to correct record/sign entry | Dankof: No clear duty because remedy at law (appeal) existed | Relator failed to show lack of adequate remedy; writ denied |
| Procedural bar: timeliness/availability of remedies | Priest: Sought mandamus after appeal concluded | Dankof: Issues could have been raised during pending appeal when correction occurred | Court held relator had opportunity during pending appeal; mandamus unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (elements for mandamus: clear right, clear duty, lack of adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967) (appeal is generally an adequate remedy preventing mandamus)
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2008) (requirements for a final, appealable judgment entry)
- State v. Priest, 131 Ohio St.3d 1439 (2012) (Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction on relator's further appeal)