2021 Ohio 3159
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- Marcus D. White was convicted after a 2005 trial of felony murder (Count 1) and felonious assault (Count 2) with firearm specifications; the trial court resentenced him in 2006 following Foster.
- The 2006 resentencing entry imposed 15-to-life (Count 1), 7 years (Count 2), merged firearm specifications, and referenced post-release control; relator later argued clerical/post-release-control errors.
- The trial court issued two nunc pro tunc entries (2019 and 2020) correcting post-release-control and statutory subsection language.
- Relator repeatedly challenged the sentencing entry in the trial court, this court, and the Ohio Supreme Court, asserting the judgment entry did not properly dispose of Count 2 (e.g., omission of victim name) and therefore was not a final judgment.
- This court and the Ohio Supreme Court have held the 2006 resentencing entry is a final, appealable order and that relator had an adequate remedy by appeal; relator filed this original action seeking writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel a correct judgment entry.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relator is entitled to a writ of mandamus/procedendo compelling the court to enter a corrected judgment disposing Count 2 | White says Count 2 was never properly disposed because the entry omitted the victim name/statutory detail, so no final judgment exists | Judge Aveni (and predecessors) already entered a valid final conviction/sentence; prior appeals and nunc pro tunc entries cured errors | Denied — relator not entitled to writ; valid final order exists and remedy by appeal was available |
| Whether the 2006 resentencing entry is a final, appealable order under Crim.R. 32(C) | White argues the entry is defective and therefore not final/appealable | State argues the entry satisfies Crim.R. 32(C) elements and was time‑stamped and signed | Held final and appealable; court and Ohio Supreme Court so found |
| Whether relator lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law | White contends he lacks an adequate remedy because the entries are defective | State points to relator’s previous appeals and the ability to challenge the entry on appeal | Held relator had an adequate remedy (appeal); that precludes mandamus/procedendo relief |
| Whether res judicata and law-of-the-case bars prevent relitigation of entry defects | White seeks further relief despite prior adverse rulings | State invokes res judicata and law of the case based on multiple prior decisions upholding the entry | Held barred — prior appellate and Supreme Court rulings control and preclude relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Priest v. Dankof, 143 Ohio St.3d 82 (sets mandamus standard requiring clear right, duty, and lack of adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (same mandamus principles regarding adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott, 77 Ohio St.3d 64 (procedendo standard: compel court to proceed when it refuses or unreasonably delays)
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (Crim.R. 32/Court of appeals final-order requirements precedent)
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (modifying Baker; four elements that make a sentencing entry final and appealable)
- State ex rel. Ward v. Reed, 141 Ohio St.3d 50 (confirming availability of appeal as adequate remedy precluding mandamus)
- State ex rel. White v. Woods, 156 Ohio St.3d 562 (Ohio Supreme Court holding the 2006 entry was a final, appealable order)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (law-of-the-case doctrine governs subsequent proceedings)