State ex rel. White v. Woods (Slip Opinion), 130 N.E.3d 271

Marcus D. White was convicted in 2005 of murder and felonious assault with firearm specifications and is serving 25 years to life.
In 2006 the trial court entered a resentencing entry; White appealed and the Tenth District affirmed the resentencing in 2008.
White later filed motions (2016) to vacate the 2006 resentencing entry; the trial court denied them for lack of jurisdiction, and the Tenth District affirmed in 2017 as untimely postconviction relief.
In August 2017 White filed an original-action complaint in the court of appeals seeking mandamus/procedendo to compel a corrected sentencing entry, arguing the 2006 entry failed to comply with Crim.R. 32(C) and R.C. 2929.19(B) and improperly consisted of multiple documents.
The Tenth District dismissed the complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), concluding White had an adequate remedy at law by appeal; this Court affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2006 resentencing entry was not a final, appealable order because it failed to comply with Crim.R. 32(C) and Baker/Lester	White: the entry omitted identification of felony underlying felony-murder, omitted required postrelease-control language, and consisted of multiple documents, so it is not a final, appealable order	Judge Woods / State: the 2006 entry satisfies Lester’s elements (conviction, sentence, judge’s signature, clerk’s time stamp) and includes notice of postrelease control, so it is final and appealable	Court: the 2006 entry was a final, appealable order under Lester (so the issues could have been raised on appeal)
Whether mandamus/procedendo is available given an adequate remedy at law	White: extraordinary relief is needed because the resentencing entry is defective and thus no plain appeal remedy exists	Judge Woods / State: White had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law (appeal from denial of motion to vacate or denial of request for a corrected entry), which bars extraordinary writs	Court: White had an adequate remedy by appeal; dismissal of mandamus/procedendo was proper (extraordinary relief unavailable)

State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142 (defining elements of a final, appealable sentencing entry under Crim.R. 32)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470 (addressing sentencing-law defects and remedial resentencing after statutory provisions invalidated)
State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452 (standards for mandamus relief: clear right, clear duty, no adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Ward v. Reed, 141 Ohio St.3d 50, 2014-Ohio-4512, 21 N.E.3d 303 (procedendo standards and availability of extraordinary writs)
State ex rel. Bradford v. Dinkelacker, 149 Ohio St.3d 683, 2017-Ohio-1342, 77 N.E.3d 935 (dismissal of original actions when adequate remedy exists)
State ex rel. Sevayega v. McMonagle, 122 Ohio St.3d 54, 2009-Ohio-2367, 907 N.E.2d 1180 (extraordinary-writ dismissal where adequate remedy exists)
State ex rel. Brown v. Nusbaum, 152 Ohio St.3d 284, 2017-Ohio-9141, 95 N.E.3d 365 (de novo review of Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190, 532 N.E.2d 753 (pleading standards and inference rules on motion to dismiss)
PDK Laboratories, Inc. v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration, 362 F.3d 786 (judicial-restraint principle cited for avoiding unnecessary decisions)