2016 Ohio 1600
Ohio2016Background
- Rudert was convicted of two counts of rape in 2003 and sentenced to two consecutive six-year terms; the original entry stated he “shall be subject to post release control of up to three years.”
- A 2006 nunc pro tunc entry changed the postrelease-control term to five years; neither entry (nor the sentencing hearing) informed Rudert of the consequences of violating postrelease control.
- After completing his prison term, Rudert filed a 2015 motion in the trial court to terminate postrelease control as improperly imposed; the trial judge dismissed it as an untimely petition for postconviction relief.
- Rudert then filed an original-action petition for writs of mandamus and procedendo asking the trial court to enter a valid final judgment relieving him of postrelease-control obligations.
- The court of appeals dismissed Rudert’s petition, reasoning the trial court loses jurisdiction after the defendant serves the maximum term; Rudert appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court must act to terminate improperly imposed postrelease control | Rudert: trial court should terminate postrelease control as improperly imposed | Judge Collier: trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant postconviction relief after sentence served | Court: Trial court may not resentence to impose postrelease control, but Rudert could appeal the dismissal; mandamus/procedendo denied for lack of extraordinary remedy |
| Whether loss of jurisdiction after service of maximum term bars any court action | Rudert: trial court can correct improperly imposed postrelease control after sentence served | Collier/court of appeals: trial court loses all jurisdiction after sentence served | Court: Holdcroft only bars resentencing to impose postrelease control; it does not categorically strip all jurisdiction to address improperly imposed postrelease control |
| Whether mandamus or procedendo is appropriate when an adequate remedy by appeal exists | Rudert: seeks extraordinary writs to obtain relief | Collier: dismissal leave alternatives via appeal | Court: Because Rudert could appeal the trial-court dismissal, mandamus and procedendo are inappropriate |
| Whether Rudert met burden of clear and convincing proof for extraordinary relief | Rudert: asserted entitlement to writs based on improper imposition | Collier: asserted legal and jurisdictional defenses | Court: Rudert did not show lack of adequate remedy in ordinary course of law; burden not met; writs denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Sherrills v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 72 Ohio St.3d 461 (standard for procedendo and requirements for relief)
- State ex rel. Crandall, Pheils & Wisniewski v. DeCessna, 73 Ohio St.3d 180 (procedendo appropriate where court refuses to enter judgment or delays)
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (mandamus standards; burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence)
- State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (after full service, court cannot resentence solely to impose postrelease control)