State ex rel. Weeks v. Phipps
2021 Ohio 2279
Ohio Ct. App. 9th2021Background
- Relator Zachary A. Weeks, an inmate, filed an original action (mandamus/procedendo) asking the Tenth District to order Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Karen Held Phipps to specify the number of jail-time-credit days applied to his cases (13CR-819 and, as argued later, 12CR-1052 and 11CR-3431).
- The trial court originally sentenced Weeks in case No. 13CR-819 on May 30, 2014 and its sentencing entry awarded 67 days of jail-time credit; Weeks did not appeal that sentence.
- Weeks filed motions for additional jail-time credit in 13CR-819 (July 1, 2014 and June 18, 2019); the trial court denied those motions by entries on August 21, 2014 and July 15, 2019, stating credit was applied to all three cases; Weeks did not appeal those denials.
- Weeks then brought this mandamus/procedendo action in August 2020; Judge Phipps moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing res judicata and availability of an adequate remedy by appeal.
- A magistrate recommended dismissal, finding the trial court had already performed its duty, Weeks had an adequate remedy by appeal which he failed to pursue, and res judicata barred relitigation; the Tenth District adopted the magistrate's decision, overruled Weeks’ objections, granted the motion to dismiss, and dismissed the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court must specify in a journal entry the exact number of jail-time-credit days applied to each underlying case | Weeks: trial court failed to specify how his asserted 553 days were allocated across 12CR-1052 and 11CR-3431, so court must state the days to allow accurate calculation | Judge: trial court already applied credit and had no duty to re-specify in the denial entries; remedy is by appeal | Court: No writ — the sentencing entry already specified credit in 13CR-819 and the court had performed its duty; no further specification required in the denial entries |
| Whether mandamus/procedendo is available when an appeal remedy exists | Weeks: seeks extraordinary relief to prevent overdetention | Judge: Weeks had an adequate remedy by direct appeal from the judgments denying his motions | Court: Appeal is an adequate remedy; failure to appeal precludes extraordinary writ |
| Whether res judicata bars relitigation of jail-time-credit claims | Weeks: contends res judicata is inapplicable because trial court did not fully explain allocation | Judge: successive motions asserting same errors are barred by res judicata when the issues could have been raised on appeal | Court: Res judicata precludes relitigation of the same jail-time-credit claims that could have been raised on appeal |
| Whether mandamus/procedendo can compel performance of a duty already performed | Weeks: asks the court to act again to specify days | Judge: cannot compel action already completed | Court: Neither writ compels performance of a duty already performed; dismissal appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Lockhart v. Whitney, 130 Ohio St.3d 95 (2011) (extraordinary writs will not compel a duty already performed)
- State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen, 88 Ohio St.3d 313 (2000) (mandamus/procedendo cannot compel performance of an already-performed duty)
- State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott, 77 Ohio St.3d 64 (1996) (elements required for procedendo: clear right, clear duty, no adequate remedy at law)
- State ex rel. Levin v. Sheffield Lake, 70 Ohio St.3d 104 (1994) (procedendo remedies refusal or undue delay in rendering judgment)
- State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006) (res judicata bars issues that could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State ex rel. Gaydosh v. Twinsburg, 93 Ohio St.3d 576 (2001) (availability of an appeal is an adequate remedy that precludes extraordinary writ relief)
- Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., 125 Ohio St.3d 494 (2010) (standards for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)