*1 2967.01(0) If the and 2947.23. R.C. of an offense. consequence as a imposed it should not be days, within 30 sentence an erroneous appeal does not state not Error that is clock, did not occur. if the sentence turn allowed to back salvation, does procedure for this subject to in limbo languish should not appealed that justice” fair, and sure administration speedy, impartial, not “effect cases, 2901.04(B) the Bezak line of I reversal of anticipates. urge it 30-day appeal period, usual beyond attack vulnerable to making sentences judicata. res ignores not trial court does majority I agree “[t]he And so while with costs,” court require payment when it fails jurisdiction
act outside of its
when the court makes
that the same is true
I would hold
majority opinion
sentencing
that all
errors
always
has
been
My
errors.
view
sentencing
other
2008-Ohio-
Simpkins,
Ohio St.3d
appeal.
corrected on direсt
should be
J.,
dissenting).
appeal
After the
(Lanzinger,
39-51
can
upon
final and thus one that
be relied
should be
expires, the sentence
period
appeal
attack in addition to
under
collateral
To allow belated
parties.
Saxon,
judicata.
of res
See State
principles
mines the
portion of the sentence 43(A). only. in judgment I concur pursuant was error to Crim.R. defendant JJ., foregoing opinion. Lundberg concur Dickinson, Stratton Emerick, Waldick, Attorney, and Jana E. County Prosecuting A. Allen Juergen Prosecuting Attorney, appellee. Assistant Defender, L. Szudy Katherine A. and Randall
Timothy Ohio Public Young, Defenders, Porter, for appellant. Assistant Public et v. Elections al. Board of State v. Noble Bd. of ex rel. Knowlton as
[Cite
82,
{¶ 1} to prevent respondents, County tion the Noble Board of its Elections and members, from S. name on a placing Stephen Hannum’s the ballot as candidate for the office of Noble sheriff in County May Party the 2010 Democratic Because clearly election. the board elections abused its discretion and 311.01(B) disregarded relator adequate remedy ordinary and lacks аn the law, grant course of the writ of prohibition. we We dismiss the claim mandamus lack jurisdiction. for
Facts 22, 2009, 305.02, On May pursuant to R.C. S. Hannum Stephen was {¶ 2} appointed County sheriff after Smith resigned. former Landon The interim appointment permanent became subsequently pleaded June. Smith an guilty contract, unlawful interest in a having public felony a of the fourth degree, a having interest, and conflict of a misdemeanor of the first degree. January On Hannum his of candidаcy filed declaration nominating petition for the May Party Democratic primary election later, the office 29, relator, of Noble Four days January sheriff. on Jr., Denny R. Knowlton a registered County resident, Democrat and Noble filed a pursuant R.C. 3513.05 to the board of elections and its members from placing Hannum’s name on ballot primary-election because he qualifications did not meet the set forth in R.C. eligible candidate for sheriff. Knowltоn is the Party other candidate for the Democratic nomination for sheriff. February hearing On the board held a protest. At the
hearing, Hannum he conceded that had not as a peace served officer the rank time, of corporal or above for the requisite period of and former sheriff Smith testified that Hannum had never attained rank of corporal during above his with employment being the sheriffs office sheriff in appointed before Hannum also two copies submitted uncertified his academic record Marietta, from Washington Community State College transcripts Ohio. January are dated February and indicate Hannum credits, had earned a total of 92 for a including life-experience portfolio three remaining experience. Life-experience 89 credits for life credits are awarded classes, and Hannum received rather for traditional experience life than life-experience these credits Twenty-nine “L” for these courses. grade these I,” II,” III.” Knowlton claims that “OPOTA and “OPOTA are for “OPOTA (“OPOTA”) Academy that other Training are for Peace Officer credits employment peace to Hannum’s appear credits also related life-experience officer. at Washington that 72 credit hours hearing, specified At edu- equivalent years postsecondary to two Community Cоllege were verify Knowlton asked that closing argument,
cation. met the applicable educational credit and determine whether credits claimed requirements. legal deny hearing, unanimously At the board voted the conclusion of
7}{¶ *3 candidacy. In a of its protest against ledger entry Hannum’s decision, protest noted the denial of the was based on the board by at the and that Hannum had submitted provided hearing information qualifications. to his educational transcripts substantiate 1, later, filed this action writs of A on March Knowlton for week certifying from its members prohibition mandamus and nomination for the office of Noble candidacy Party Hannum’s the Democratic 4, 2010 ballot. placing primary-election sheriff and his name answer, parties members filed an and the submitted briefs The board and its cases pursuant expedited to the schedule election S.Ct.Prac.R. evidence 10.9. This now the court for our of merits. cause is before consideration
9}{¶
Legal Analysis Laches cases to with the consistently required “We have relators election act 10}
{¶
Blackwell,
567,
¶ time in delay lapse “The of are unreasonable of 11. elements laсhes (2) (3) a actual or asserting delay, knowledge, absence of excuse for right, (4) constructive, injury party.” to the other wrong, prejudice of the (1995), 656 Cuyahoga Cty. ex rel. Polo v. Elections N.E.2d by asserts that Knowlton’s claims are barred board elections 11}
{¶
objected Hannum’s
to be
qualifications
laches because he could have
argument
The board’s
lacks merit. Knowlton
appointed.
after Hannum was
challenging
Hannum’s
right
candidate for sheriff at the May
primary election. He filed his protest only
days after Hannum filed his
four
declaration of candidacy
petition
for his nomination at
election.
A protest
pursuant
R.C. 3513.05 would have
premature
been
before Hannum
filed his
candidacy
declaration of
and nominating petition. Nor is Hannum’s
delay
days
seven
from the date
protest
the board denied his
to file this case
unreasonable. Cf. State ex rel.
Landis v. Morrow
Bd. Elections
(“we
Mandamus Knowlton initially requests a writ of mandamus to compel the board and its members to sustain against Hannum’s candidacy for sheriff. “It is axiomatic that ‘if allegations of a complaint
{¶
for a writ
mandamus indicate that the real objects
sought
declaratory
judgment and a
prohibitory injunction, the complaint does not state a cause of action in manda-
”
mus and must be dismissed for want
jurisdiction.’
State ex rel. Obojski v.
Perciak,
quoting State
*4
Grendell v.
629, 634,
Davidson
86 Ohio St.3d
complaint are
in
couched
terms of
duties,
compelling affirmative
it is apparent
(1)
actually
he
seeks
a declaratory judgmеnt that the board’s denial of his
(2)
protest was improper and
a prohibitory injunction preventing Hannum from
appearing
primary-election
fact,
ballot.
complaint,
his
Knowlton
claims that he is entitled to the writ
prevent
“to
Respondents from placing
Stephen S. Hannum’s name on the ballot as a candidate for the office of Noble
County
4,
Sheriff at
May
2010 primary election.” The
by
relief sought
Knowlton is
comparable
thus
to that sought by relаtors in other election
cases
which we held that
jurisdiction
we lacked
over mandamus claims to remove
candidates’ names from the ballot. See generally State ex rel. Reese v. Cuyahoga
86
¶
1251, 14,
Cty.
of
cases cited therein.
declaratory
nature of
relief in the
Knowlton seeks
because
manda-
to consider his
jurisdiction
we lack
injunction,
prohibitory
judgment
¶
Prohibition
of
requests
prohibition
writ
(¶
alternately
candidacy for the
Hannum’s
certifying
from
and its members
of elections
placing
of Noble
for the office
Party nomination
Democratic
writ,
to the
To be entitled
4,
ballot.
May
primary-election
on the
his name
(1)
and its members
the board of elections
establish
Knowlton must
(2)
unautho-
of that
power
the exercise
power,
quasi-judicial
about to exercise
other
(3)
for which no
law,
injury
writ will result
denying
rized
v.
ex rel. Stoll
course of law. State
ordinary
remedy exists
adequate
1214,
The board
testimony.
statute that included sworn
hearing required by
conducting
after
¶
ed R.C. unreasonable, unconscionable attitude.” State arbitrary, implies discretion (1997), 80 Bd. Elections Montgomery Cty. Corp. ex rel. Cooker Restaurant N.E.2d 238. *5 311.01(B)provides: R.C. {¶ 20} * * * unless that a candidаte for sheriff eligible is to be person “[N]o
{¶ 21} requirements: following meets all of the person “ * * *
{¶ 22} “(9) following of the conditions: meets at least one person {¶ 23} “(a) Has at years least two of supervisory experience peace as officer {¶ 24} above, at the rank of corporal or or has appointed pursuant been to section 5503.01 [referring Highway the State of the Patrol] Revised Code and served above, at the rank sergeant of or in five-year period the ending immediately prior date; to the qualification “(b) completed Has at satisfactorily years least two of post-secondary
education or in equivalent semester or in quarter hours or college university authorized to confer degrees by the Ohio board of regents comparable or the agency of in another state which college university or or in located a school that holds a registration certificate of issued the state of colleges board career and schools under Chapter 3332. of the Revised Code.” “A candidate for sheriff can satisfy R.C. in one of the (1) following ways: have at years least two of supervisory experience as a peace officer at the rank of corporal or five-year above period immediately before (2) date, qualification aрpointed Highway Patrol under R.C. 5503.01 and serve at the rank sergeant above the five-year period ending (3) immediately date, before the qualification satisfactorily complete at least years two of qualifying postsecondary education equivalent.” or the Wellington Elections, v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. 420, 44. Hannum was never appointed Patrol, to the Highway
{¶ but at the hearing, 27} he claimed to satisfy both of the other two alternatives specified R.C. 311.01(B)(9). For thе requirement of supervisory experience officer, a peace the language
“[u]nder used in the pertinent portion 311.01(B)(9)(a), of R.C. order to be eligible sheriff, to be a must, candidate for person within the five- year period, have years two of supervisory experience and that supervisory experience must have been earned when the person served as a peace at officer added.) the rank cоrporal or above.” (Emphasis State ex rel. v. Wolfe Delaware Cty. Bd. Elections 771; State ex rel. Craig Scioto 2008-Ohio- prospective Like the sheriffs
{¶ candidates and Craig, Hannum Wolfe did not peace serve as a officer the rank of corporal or above for the required years two during pertinent period. The former Noble County fact, confirmed this and the board of elections and its members conceded it in their answer. Hannum did not satisfy the supervisory-experience 311.01(B)(9)(a). requirement For the postsecondary-education requirement 311.01(B)(9)(b), claims completed had not “at years least two of post- *6 in a hours quarter college or the in semester or equivalent education
secondary a to to be to be candidate for university degrees” eligible or authorized confer sheriff. Mahoning 120 Ohio Wellington that “under plain we held the statute, 311.01(B)(9)(b), of the entire as rеad context
language of R.C. not to course credit under R.C. peace training acceptable is constitute officer 311.01(B)(9)(b), requirements it is included already eligibility because added.) 311.01(B)(8) 311.01(B)(8).” that “R.C. (Emphasis R.C. We reasoned a requirement, that is distinct with peace training along officer already specifies sheriff, To a eligible be candidate for one must specified employment. (or training pursuant peace training obtain certificate of officer certificate 5503.05) or and have either as a officer with the employment peace R.C. 311.01(B)(8)(a) specified under R.C. or as law-enforcement highway patrol 311.01(B)(8)(b). education needed postsecondary officer under R.C. The under 311.01(B)(9)(b) altogether training R.C. the peace speci is distinct from officer 311.01(B)(8). ‘at years post-secondary The least two equivalent R.C. fied 311.01(B)(9) quarter in R.C. is to be hours in a specified education’ ‘sеmester ” added.) college university degrees.’ (Emphasis authorized to confer Id. Notwithstanding suggestions contrary, to the the evidence the board’s supports before at the conclusion that Hannum has protest hearing contrary to our peace-officer training double-counted credits earned for decision that Hannum Wellington. specified transcripts OPOTA courses at the Training submitted refer to courses he has taken Peace Officer fact, do Academy. In the board and its members not claim “OPOTA” refers academy manifestly other than courses. These courses are for anything which, Wellington, “peace training,” according officer 2008- Ohio-5510, that can satisfy N.E.2d do not constitute course credit 311.01(B)(9)(b) postsecondary-education requirement. R.C. for because 29 credits Hannum earned were peace- officer could toward training, they postsecondary-educаtion not be counted 311.01(B)(9)(b). Furthermore, “life-experience” requirement any of R.C. other credit job ineligible to his as a officer were under peace credits related also 311.01(B)(9)(b) 311.01(B)(8) accounts for Hannum’s already R.C. because R.C. render peace contrary holding as a officer. A would R.C. employment 311.01(B)(9)(b) postsecond- circumstances would superfluous permit these criteria in ary-education though duplicates credit even it other distinct 311.01(B) Thus, as a candidate for sheriff. Hannum earned at qualification credits, which, at the testimony protest hearing, most his own only insufficient to satisfy postsecondary-education requirement 311.01(B)(9)(b). Consequently, the board and its members abused their discretion and
clearly disregarded R.C.
*7
by denying Knowlton’s
and
certify-
ing Hannum’s candidacy for sheriff at the
4 primary election because
Hannum
satisfy
did not
in
any
categories
the three
that subsection. Knowlton
is thus entitled to
requested
in
extraоrdinary
prohibition. Although
relief
we
a “duty
have
to liberally
statutory
construe the
on
right
limitations
to be an
eligible candidate for sheriff in
permit
order to
electors to choose from all
candidates,
qualified
the court
liberally
cannot
construe
statute with an un-
equivocal and definite meaning.” Wellington,
143,
Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Knowlton has established his entitlement to the requested in extraordinary relief prohibition. we a writ grant prоhibition to prevent the board and its members from placing the name of Stephen S. Hannum on the ballot as a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for Noble County sheriff at the May election. We also dismiss Knowlton’s mandamus claim for lack jurisdiction.
Judgment accordingly. Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, JJ., and concur. Cupp, Moyer, C.J., J., concur in the dismissal of the mandamus claim but dissent from the grant of the writ of prohibition. J., in part
Pfeifer, concurs in part. dissents J., concurring Pfeifer, part dissenting part. I concur in the dismissal of the mandamus claim but dissent from the
judgment the writ of granting prohibition to from appearing candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for sheriff at the 4,May 2010 primary election. The majority errs in relying on State ex rel. Wellington Mahoning
{¶ to hold the board of elections abused its discretion in concluding that Hannum 311.01(B)(9)(b). satisfied the postsecondary-education requirement I in Wеllington dissented and continue to believe that the majority therein read “additional requirements into a already designed statute to thwart competition.” reasons, Welling- Moreover, following for the (Pfeifer, J., dissenting). Id. at 34 lack merit. arguments and Knowlton’s is distinguishable, ton determining erred and its members that the board argues requirement. postsecondary-education that Hannum satisfied evidence, they are not however, supposition, on claims, largely bаsed First, its discretion. abused that the of elections board insufficient to establish transcript of elections was submitted before no evidence necessarily III” referred I,” II,” and “OPOTA “OPOTA notations for “OPOTA Wellington, Knowlton relies courses. training peace-officer that the prospective this court held which 311.01(B)(9)(b) But that requirement. the R.C. had not met sheriffs candidate Wellington candidate sheriffs prospective because the distinguishable case is “law-enfоrcement- him was for credit claimed that some of the had conceded Id. at 7. Academy.” Training Peace Officer courses at the Ohio certification that the courses are “law-enforcement- concession Here, comparable there is no *8 academy. Although at training peace-officer or are for courses” certification not, he did argument, to this support to introduce evidence attemptеd * * * could not be discretion of elections abused its “a claim that the board Logan it.” ex rel. Stoll v. to State presented that was never based on evidence ¶ 40. 881 N.E.2d Cty. Bd. of at the Second, to the board of elections no evidence was submitted 39} {¶ to transcript relating Hannum’s 20 credits on that an additional protest hearing not be counted toward courses should referred to as “CRJU” courses 311.01(B)(9)(b) requirement postsecondary-education оf the satisfaction prohibition contains no courses. The statute actually were OPOTA they because credit. life-experience the use of against protest hearing at the was submitted Finally, credible evidence 18, 2010 February sufficient credits before that Hannum earned
establish Community College Washington State January date. The qualification includes a notation hearing at the presented that Hannum transcript “ERN,” could have are which the board quarter the winter 89 credits from that he hearing Hannum also testified meant earned. reasonably inferred assigned [him] had been “college that his credits “had documentation” conflicting on this could be considered as the evidence January 26.” Insofar if elections for that of a board of judgment our will not substitute point, “[w]e v. Delaware ex rel. evidence on issue.” State conflicting there is Wolfe 771. (2000), Bd. Elections 14,000. small; just http:// over it has a County pоpulation Noble {¶ safe to probably It is www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genInfo.php?locIndex=17252. running of who is county is aware every voting-age person assume that sheriff. I know it collectively is safe to assume that County voters Noble competent who decide should be their sheriff. Finally, many this court has times stated that it construing avoids statutes that lead to illogical or absurd results. Haines v. Rhodes 168 Ohio St. 5 O.O.2d paragraph two of the syllabus; T.R., In re
Hannum is currently County. the sheriff of Noble theBy time the next elected office, sheriff takes Hannum will have been the years. sheriff for almost two But today this court concludes that the County Noble Board of Elections abused its discretion it when certified Hannum’s candidacy for sheriff. This court concludes that a man who has been sheriff since 2009 is unqualified candidate for sheriff. How is that not an absurd result? I conclude that Knowlton failed to establish that the board of elections
abused its discretion or clearly disregarded law in applicable determining that 311.01(B)(9). Hannum had met the requirements of R.C. I deny would the writ prohibition. Because the majority erroneously extends Wellington’s beef to thereby precludes County the Noble electorate from opportu- nity sheriff, to reelect their current I dissent. McGinnis,
McTigue L.L.C., & McGinnis, Donald J. Mark McTigue, A. and J. Colombo, Corey for relator. Piccininni,
Patrick J. Special Sickler, Counsel to Clifford N. Prosecuting Attorney, respondents. *9 Pop L.L.C., d.b.a. The
Stammco, Shop, al., Appellees, et v. United Telephone Company Appellants. Ohio, Sprint, al., d.b.a. et Stammco,
[Cite as
L.L.C.
United Tel. Co. of
Ohio,
125 Ohio