State ex rel. Rose v. McGinty
128 Ohio St. 3d 371
Ohio2011Background
- Rose sought a writ of procedendo to compel a new judgment of conviction and sentence.
- The trial court’s original March 27, 2007 sentencing entry satisfied Crim.R. 32(C) and R.C. 2505.02.
- Counts leading to Rose’s conviction were fully resolved; some charged counts were nolled.
- The Court of Appeals denied the writ; the issue was whether a new judgment was required.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding no new entry was needed beyond the existing compliant judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the March 27, 2007 entry complied with Crim.R. 32(C) and R.C. 2505.02 | Rose asserts a new judgment is required. | McGinty argues the existing entry is sufficient. | The entry complied; no new judgment necessary. |
| Whether dispositions of nolled counts must be reiterated in the judgment | Rose contends all charged counts must be included. | Defendant maintains only convicted counts need be in the judgment. | Dispositions of nolled counts need not be reiterated. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2008-Ohio-3330) (full resolution of counts for which there were convictions suffices)
- State ex rel. Sevayega v. McMonagle, 122 Ohio St.3d 54 (2009-Ohio-2367) (writ of procedendo not issued where duty already performed)
- State ex rel. Davis v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 127 Ohio St.3d 29 (2010-Ohio-4728) (limits on reiteration of counts; disposition of nolled counts)