State ex rel. James P. Ellis, Relator, v. Annette Chambers-Smith, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, Respondent.
No. 22AP-14
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
August 1, 2023
[Cite as State ex rel. Ellis v. Chambers-Smith, 2023-Ohio-2671.]
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on August 1, 2023
On brief: James P. Ellis, pro se.
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horvath, for respondent.
IN MANDAMUS ON OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE‘S DECISION
BEATTY BLUNT, P.J.
{¶ 1} Relator, James P. Ellis, has filed this original action requesting that this court issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent to “employ, execute, and enforce” an August 2, 2021 order issued by the trial court in his criminal case. Despite the fact that the entry is captioned “Entry Granting Motion for Jail Time Credit” and purports to take no other action but to grant Ellis “credit for time served for a total of 373 days of credit (as of the date of sentencing), plus conveyance time to the institution,” see Aug. 2, 2021 Entry,
{¶ 2} Pursuant to
{¶ 3} Relator has not specifically set forth individual objections to the magistrate‘s decision, but instead objects to the magistrate‘s decision in general. Compare
The dispute here is set upon the challenge as to whether: (1) the ‘August 2, 2021 ‘Entry’ is a *resentencing entry; (2) Respondents are under a clear legal duty “to contact the committing court immediately” where an inaccuracy exists on the face of said entry pursuant to ODRC Policy 52 RCP 01; and, (3) the entry constitutes a final appealable order.
Id. at 6. Relator argues that all three questions must be answered in the affirmative. We disagree, and for clarity we will address relator‘s questions in reverse order, as they interrelate in a way that can be confusing.
{¶ 4} Regarding the third question, it is clear that the magistrate correctly held that under
{¶ 6} And that brings us to relator‘s first question. In support of his argument that the entry must necessarily be a resentencing entry, relator relies upon State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, and State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, to argue that because an entry issued in a criminal case under
{¶ 7} In summary, both the trial court, in granting relator additional jail-time credit and respondent in recording that credit acted properly, and relator has not and cannot show that either has failed to perform a clear legal duty to which they were obliged.
Objection overruled; writ of mandamus denied.
JAMISON and LELAND, JJ., concur.
________________
State ex rel. James P. Ellis, Relator, v. Annette Chambers-Smith, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Respondent.
No. 22AP-14
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
March 31, 2023
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on March 31, 2023
James P. Ellis, pro se.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and George Horvath, for respondent.
IN MANDAMUS ON MOTIONS
{¶ 8} Relator, James P. Ellis, has filed this original action seeking a writ of mandamus against respondent, Annette Chambers-Smith, in her capacity as director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC“).
I. Findings of Fact
{¶ 9} 1. Relator is incarcerated at Marion Correctional Institution in Marion, Ohio.
{¶ 10} 2. Respondent Annette Chambers-Smith is the director of ODRC, a state governmental agency responsible for, among other duties, operating Ohio‘s prison system.
{¶ 12} 4. In Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas case No. B 9403355, relator was found guilty, following trial by jury, of aggravated murder in violation of
{¶ 13} 5. In Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas case No. B 940513, following a plea and finding of guilty for the offense of vandalism in violation of
{¶ 14} 6. In case No. B 9403355, the trial court granted relator‘s motion for jail-time credit in an entry filed on August 2, 2021. The trial court granted relator “373 days credit (as of the date of sentencing), plus conveyance time to the institution” and stated that “[t]his credit includes any credit previously given.” (ODRC‘s Certified Record at 5.)
{¶ 15} 7. On January 5, 2022, relator filed his complaint in mandamus in the instant case and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Relator sought the following relief in his complaint:
- a writ of mandamus issue compelling [ODRC] to employ, execute and enforce the ‘August 2, 2021-resentencing entry’ as it is written;
- a writ of mandamus issue directing [ODRC] disavow and discontinue any and all attempts to implicate the Baker (“one-document rule“);
- a writ of mandamus issue compelling [ODRC] to yield to the mandatory prohibition enumerate in State ex rel. Fraley v. Ohio Dep‘t of Rehab and Corr.; and, State v. Henderson, supra as are made obligatory by law in such cases as are redolent here.
(Sic passim.) (Compl. at 19-20.)
{¶ 17} 9. ODRC filed a motion to dismiss on March 4, 2022. ODRC filed a motion to withdraw its motion to dismiss on March 31, 2022, which was granted on the same day. ODRC filed its answer on April 21, 2022.
{¶ 18} 10. On May 24, 2022, relator filed an appendix of evidentiary documents and other probative materials. On May 25, 2022, ODRC filed a presentation of evidence pursuant to
{¶ 19} 11. Relator filed a motion for summary judgment on June 7, 2022, his brief on June 14, 2022, and a motion for leave to file supplemental evidentiary submission on June 17, 2022.
{¶ 20} 12. ODRC filed its brief on July 1, 2022. On July 5, 2022, ODRC filed a combined cross-motion for summary judgment and memorandum in opposition to relator‘s June 7, 2022 motion for summary judgment.
{¶ 21} 13. On July 18, 2022, relator filed a motion for extension of time to file responsive pleadings, a motion to strike ODRC‘s “brief in opposition; and, [ODRC‘s] opposit(ion) and cross-motion for summary judgment,” and a motion to strike ODRC‘s July 1, 2022 “reply brief.” On July 19, 2022, relator filed a motion to strike ODRC‘s “labeled miscellaneous papers, filed: ‘July 5, 2022.’ ” On July 21, 2022, relator filed a “motion/memorandum contra ‘[ODRC‘s] opposition’ dated: ‘July 5, 2022.’ ” On July 29, 2022, relator filed a second “motion/memorandum contra, [ODRC‘S] []‘Cross-Motion‘[] for Summary Judgment, (d)ated: ‘July 5, 2022.’ ”
{¶ 22} 14. ODRC filed a motion for extension of time to plead as to relator‘s July 29, 2022 memorandum contra on August 4, 2022.
{¶ 23} 15. Relator filed a “motion/memorandum contra, [ODRC‘s] opposition to relator‘s motion(s) to strike” on August 5, 2022. On August 16, 2022, relator filed a “motion/memorandum in opposition to: [ODRC‘S] motion for “1. leave to file a secondary responsive pleading in opposition to Relator‘s “July 29, 2022-motion/memorandum contra, [ODRC‘s] []‘cross-motion‘[] for summary judgment; and, 2. an extension of time
{¶ 24} 16. The matter is now before the magistrate on relator‘s motion for summary judgment and ODRC‘s cross-motion for summary judgment.
II. Discussion and Conclusions of Law
{¶ 25} Central to this mandamus action is the import of the trial court‘s August 2, 2021 entry granting relator‘s motion for jail-time credit. Relator argues that this entry, which he characterizes as a “resentencing entry,” “failed to articulate a judgment of conviction or impose any sentence other than []373 days of jail time credit.” (Compl. at 9-10.)
A. Summary Judgment and Mandamus Standard
{¶ 26} Summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party demonstrates: (1) no genuine issue of material fact exists, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made.
{¶ 27} Pursuant to
{¶ 28} In order for a court to issue a writ of mandamus, a relator must establish (1) the relator has a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) the respondent is under a clear legal duty to provide the relief, and (3) the relator has no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 29 (1983), citing State ex rel. Harris v. Rhodes, 54 Ohio St.2d 41, 42 (1978). The relator bears the burden of establishing entitlement to a writ of mandamus by clear and convincing evidence. State ex rel. Ware v. Crawford, 167 Ohio St.3d 453, 2022-Ohio-295, ¶ 14. “Clear and convincing evidence is ‘that measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere “preponderance of the evidence,” but not to the extent of such certainty as is required “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases, and which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.’ ” State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 288, 2009-Ohio-5327, ¶ 18, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus.
B. Jail-Time Credit Under Ohio Law
{¶ 29} “The practice of awarding jail-time credit, although now covered by state statute, has its roots in the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions.” State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856, ¶ 7. See State ex rel. Williams v. Chambers-Smith, 10th Dist. No. 19AP-388, 2020-Ohio-1344, ¶ 4 (“A criminal defendant has a general right to credit for [the time spent in] confinement prior to sentencing.“). Pursuant to
{¶ 30}
The sentencing court retains continuing jurisdiction to correct any error not previously raised at sentencing in making a determination under division (B)(2)(g)(i) of this section. The offender may, at any time after sentencing, file a motion in the sentencing court to correct any error made in making a determination under division (B)(2)(g)(i) of this section, and the court may in its discretion grant or deny that motion. If the court changes the number of days in its determination or redetermination, the court shall cause the entry granting that change to be delivered to the department of rehabilitation and correction without delay.
{¶ 31} Thus, pursuant to
C. Application
{¶ 32} First, it is important to recognize that error in the calculation of jail-time credit is “remediable in the ordinary course of law by appeal or motion for jail-time credit” under
{¶ 33} Next, relator states in his motion for summary judgment that he “is not (in any form and in any respect)tempting that he is in any way entitled to either: (1) immediate release from custody; or, (2) the custody of another, nor has or is relator offering any argument that his conviction is []invalid, rather, only that respondents[] have []unconstitutionally taken on the mantle and burdens squarely placed on the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court and have []resentenced relator de facto.” (Relator‘s Mot. for Summ. Jgmt. at 12.) However, relator also contends that “[t]here is nothing to enforce save 373 days of already served jail time credit” and states that ODRC has an “insatiable desire to exercise lawful privilege to intentionally confine where none exists.” (Relator‘s Mot. for Summ. Jgmt. at 12.) Regardless, insofar as relator would claim he is wrongfully held and entitled to immediate release, such claim must be brought in an action for habeas corpus, not mandamus. State ex rel. Johnson v. Ohio Parole Bd., 80 Ohio St.3d 140, 141 (1997). See State ex rel. Mango v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 18AP-945, 2021-Ohio-1314, ¶ 6.
{¶ 34} Turning to relator‘s claims for relief, relator asserts in his motion for summary judgment that ODRC is under a clear legal duty to enforce and execute the terms of the trial court‘s August 2, 2021 entry. As previously noted, relator argues the trial court‘s August 2, 2021 entry resulted in there being “nothing [for ODRC] to enforce save 373 days of already served jail time credit.” (Relator‘s Mot. for Summ. Jgmt. at 12.) Relator bases his argument in part on the assertion that
{¶ 35} Relator‘s misconception regarding the meaning of
{¶ 36} Here, the uncontroverted record reflects that ODRC has complied with any duty arising under
{¶ 37} Relator cannot show a clear legal right under
{¶ 38} Relator also argues ODRC is under a duty to contact the committing court upon recognition of inaccuracies in the commitment papers based on 52-RCP-01, an internal policy of ODRC. ”
{¶ 39} “A court in a mandamus proceeding cannot create the legal duty the relator would enforce through it.” State ex rel. Hodges v. Taft, 64 Ohio St.3d 1, 3 (1992). An internal policy of an agency alone does not create a legal duty enforceable in mandamus. State ex rel. Aaron‘s, Inc. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 148 Ohio St.3d 34, 2016-Ohio-5011, ¶ 26. Rather, “[o]nly the legislature can create a legal duty to be enforced in mandamus.” State ex rel. Clough v. Franklin Cty. Children Servs., 144 Ohio St.3d 83, 2015-Ohio-3425, ¶ 15. ” ’ “With respect to penal institutions, prison administrators must be accorded deference in adopting * * * policies and practices to preserve internal order and to maintain institutional security.” ’ ” State ex rel. McDougald v. Sehlmeyer, 162 Ohio St.3d 94, 2020-Ohio-3927, ¶ 15, quoting State ex rel. Dehler v. Mohr, 129 Ohio St.3d 37, 2011-Ohio-959, ¶ 2, quoting Briscoe v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 02AP-1109, 2003-Ohio-3533, ¶ 16. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “[p]rison regulations” adopted under ODRC‘s broad grant of authority to regulate the internal affairs of prisons are “primarily designed to guide correctional officials in prison administration rather than to confer rights on inmates.” State ex rel. Larkins v. Wilkinson, 79 Ohio St.3d 477, 479 (1997).
{¶ 40} In support of his argument, relator points to a document attached to his June 17, 2022 motion for leave to file a supplemental evidentiary submission, which he identifies
{¶ 41} Leaving aside the question of whether the version of the policy identified by relator remains effective, relator cannot demonstrate that the provisions he identifies in the policy confer on him a right to the requested relief. This policy falls under the General Assembly‘s broad grant of authority to ODRC to enable the agency to guide correctional officials in prison administration rather than to confer a right on inmates such as relator. Larkins at 479. Thus, mandamus will not issue to compel ODRC to act upon this internal policy. Additionally, relator cannot demonstrate ODRC had a clear legal duty to perform the requested act under this policy because, as will be discussed further below, ODRC was acting in accordance with valid sentencing entries from the trial court. See Likes v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 05AP-709, 2006-Ohio-231, ¶ 12 (noting the appellant‘s arguments regarding 52-RCP-01 and stating that “even if this policy was applicable, appellant has failed to demonstrate any violation because it is clear that [ODRC] was acting in accordance with a valid judgment entry, despite appellant‘s assertions to the contrary“).
{¶ 42} Relator‘s remaining requests for relief relate to several decisions of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Relator argues that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus “directing [ODRC] disavow and discontinue any and all attempts to implicate the * * * []‘one document rule[]‘.” under State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330. (Compl. at 19-20.) In Baker, the court answered the question of what a judgment of conviction must include pursuant to
{¶ 43} Finally, relator argues he is entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering ODRC to comply with State ex rel. Fraley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 161 Ohio St.3d 209, 2020-Ohio-4410, and State v. Henderson, 161 Ohio St.3d 285, 2020-Ohio-4784. Relator asserts that ODRC “simply cannot (as a matter of law) retain and exercise and employ any part or portion of the former ‘March 31, 1995-entry’ to thus attempt to do indirectly again, that which cannot be done directly as a matter of law under Baker; Fraley; and, Henderson.” (Relator‘s Compl. at 15.) Relator cannot demonstrate a clear right to the requested relief or that ODRC is under a clear duty to act under these decisions.
{¶ 44} In Fraley, ODRC lengthened the offender‘s sentence contrary to the express language contained in the offender‘s sentencing entries based on ODRC‘s interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that regardless of whether the sentencing “entries contained a legal error favoring Fraley,” ODRC “has a clear legal duty to carry out the sentence that the trial court imposed.” Therefore, the court granted a writ of mandamus ordering ODRC to correct its records to execute the sentence actually imposed by the sentencing court. Fraley at ¶ 18.
{¶ 45} In Henderson, the court considered whether to declare a sentence void and allow the state to correct an error in sentencing through a motion for resentencing. The court concluded that “sentences based on an error, including sentences in which a trial court fails to impose a statutorily mandated term, are voidable if the court imposing the sentence has jurisdiction over the case and the defendant.” Henderson at ¶ 1.
{¶ 46} Relator‘s convictions in case No. B 9403355 were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Ellis (“Ellis I“), 1st Dist. No. C-950307, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 3831 (Sept. 4, 1996).
{¶ 47} The above determination in Ellis II is consistent with the pronouncement in Fraley that “[w]hen a statute requires sentences to be served consecutively and the sentencing entry is silent as to how the sentences are to run, the statute controls.” Fraley at ¶ 13, citing State ex rel. Thompson v. Kelly, 137 Ohio St.3d 32, 2013-Ohio-2444, ¶ 10. Relator fails to demonstrate that ODRC is not applying the terms of the trial court‘s March 31, 1995 sentencing entry. Additionally, for the reasons discussed in the resolution of relator‘s arguments related to
D. Conclusion
{¶ 49} Relator‘s June 17, 2022 motion for leave to file supplemental evidentiary submission is granted. Relator‘s July 18, 2022 motion for extension of time to file responsive pleadings is granted such that relator‘s July 21, 2022 reply brief and July 21, 2022 “motion/memorandum contra” are deemed timely filed. ODRC‘s August 4, 2022 motion for extension of time is rendered moot. The following motions are denied: relator‘s July 18, 2022 motion to strike ODRC‘s “brief in opposition; and, [ODRC‘s] opposit(ion) and cross-motion for summary judgment“; relator‘s July 18, 2022 motion to strike ODRC‘s July 1, 2022 “reply brief“; relator‘s July 19, 2022 motion to strike; and relator‘s August 16, 2022 motion for order of admonishment.
{¶ 50} Finally, despite appearing to be memoranda contra, several of relator‘s filings are captioned as both a motion and memorandum contra. As memoranda contra, no action is required; however, to the extent such filings are construed as motions, they are moot. Accordingly, relator‘s July 21, 2022 “motion/memorandum contra,” July 29, 2022 “motion/memorandum contra,” August 5, 2022 “motion/memorandum contra,” and August 16, 2022 “motion/memorandum in opposition” are rendered moot.
/S/ MAGISTRATE
JOSEPH E. WENGER IV