State ex rel. Smith v. McGee
144 Ohio St. 3d 50
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Darryl Smith was originally convicted in 1986 of multiple sexual offenses and later classified under Megan’s Law; he was released on parole in 2006.
- After the Adam Walsh Act (2008) reclassification, Smith was charged and convicted for failure-to-notify offenses (2007 and 2008 incidents) and returned to prison; he alleges reclassification to Tier III was improper post-Bodyke.
- In June 2012 Smith moved for de novo resentencing in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas in both the 2007 and 2008 cases, arguing Bodyke rendered parts of the Adam Walsh Act unconstitutional and his Tier III status improper.
- Judge McGee construed those motions as petitions for postconviction relief and denied them; Smith appealed the 2008 denial and filed a separate original-action petition (mandamus and procedendo) in the court of appeals seeking vacatur/reclassification and reinstatement of prior community-control conditions.
- The Second District dismissed Smith’s petition; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding Smith has an adequate remedy by appeal and thus is not entitled to writs of mandamus or procedendo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus/procedendo may compel the trial judge to vacate the 2008 conviction and reclassify Smith | Smith: Judge McGee must vacate the conviction, reclassify him to pre-Adam-Walsh status, and reinstate 2007 community-control | Judge McGee: Relief is improper in an original writ because Smith has ordinary appellate remedies | Denied. Writs not available because appeal (or appeal of the other denial) is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law |
| Whether denial of de novo resentencing can be compelled to proceed by procedendo | Smith: Trial court refused to proceed to de novo resentencing | McGee: Denial was proper and any error is reviewable on appeal | Denied. Procedendo inappropriate because appeal suffices |
| Whether mandamus is available to require relief based on Bodyke reclassification arguments | Smith: Bodyke undermines Adam Walsh classification; mandamus needed to correct ongoing detention | McGee: Mandamus unavailable where an adequate appellate remedy exists | Denied. Mandamus precluded by adequacy of appeal |
| Proper procedural characterization of Smith’s motions (postconviction relief vs. de novo resentencing) | Smith: framed motions as de novo resentencing seeking immediate relief | McGee: Court construed them as postconviction petitions and denied | Court accepted record allegations as true but held characterization does not justify original writs; appeals are proper channel |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 (2010) (reassessment of Adam Walsh Act provisions affecting sex-offender classification)
- State ex rel. Ward v. Reed, 141 Ohio St.3d 50 (2014) (appeal is an adequate remedy to preclude extraordinary writs)
- State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 128 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (standards on accepting allegations as true in writ-dismissal appeals)
- State ex rel. Crabtree v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Health, 77 Ohio St.3d 247 (1997) (appeal as adequate remedy bars mandamus)