State ex rel. White v. Aveni, 2022 Ohio 1755

In 2003 White was indicted on aggravated murder (Count One, with firearm specs) and attempted murder (Count Two, with firearm specs); a third count was dismissed at trial.
In 2005 a jury found White guilty of felony murder (lesser included of Count One) and felonious assault (lesser included of Count Two), with firearm findings; he received an aggregate 25 years to life sentence.
The Tenth District affirmed convictions but remanded for resentencing; a 2006 resentencing entry issued and was later appealed and affirmed.
White repeatedly challenged whether sentencing entries properly identified the predicate felony (the felonious assault of Debra Green underlying the felony-murder conviction) and sought corrections; a 2020 nunc pro tunc entry was issued after a 2019 motion, and the appeals court held that entry was not final and dismissed the appeal.
In March 2021 White sued for writs of mandamus and/or procedendo seeking an order compelling the trial judge to issue a new sentencing entry that explicitly disposes of the felonious-assault count concerning Green (the predicate felony for Count One).
The Tenth District dismissed White’s complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding White had an adequate remedy at law (a motion in the trial court and an appeal from its denial) so mandamus/procedendo did not lie.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus or procedendo could compel a new sentencing entry disposing of the felonious-assault predicate offense	White: trial court failed to dispose of the felonious-assault of Green; mandamus/procedendo should compel a new sentencing entry	Respondent/Judge: relief inappropriate because other adequate remedies exist; complaint fails to state claim	Denied; mandamus/procedendo unavailable because White had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
Whether the complaint stated a claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) despite the court of appeals’ mischaracterization of the claim	White: the court misread his claim and should have recognized a right to an entry disposing of the predicate felony	Judge: complaint fails to state a claim; dismissal proper	Although the Tenth District misconstrued the claim, dismissal was nevertheless correct for other reasons (adequate remedy)
Whether the appropriate remedy was mandamus/procedendo versus a motion in the trial court followed by appeal	White: sentencing entries are nonfinal if they omit disposition of predicate felony, so extraordinary writs are required	Judge: White could have moved in trial court for a new sentencing entry; appeal from a denial would be a final, appealable order	Court: White had an adequate remedy — a motion in the trial court and appeal if denied — so extraordinary relief is not available

State ex rel. McKinney v. Schmenk, 92 N.E.3d 871 (Ohio 2017) (de novo review standard for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissals)
Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., Inc., 929 N.E.2d 434 (Ohio 2010) (motion to dismiss tests complaint sufficiency)
Clark v. Connor, 695 N.E.2d 751 (Ohio 1998) (standard for dismissal when no set of facts would grant relief)
State ex rel. Love v. O’Donnell, 81 N.E.3d 1250 (Ohio 2017) (elements required for mandamus)
State ex rel. Ames v. Pokorny, 173 N.E.3d 1208 (Ohio 2021) (elements required for procedendo)
State ex rel. Sands v. Culotta, 176 N.E.3d 735 (Ohio 2021) (extraordinary writs will not issue when an adequate remedy at law exists)
State ex rel. Simmons v. Breaux, 155 N.E.3d 857 (Ohio 2020) (denial of motion for new sentencing entry produces a final, appealable order)
State ex rel. Neguse v. McIntosh, 161 N.E.3d 571 (Ohio 2020) (court may affirm for correct reasons even if lower court’s rationale was erroneous)