State ex rel. Mack v. Collier
2011 Ohio 4188
Ohio
2011
Check Treatment

THE STATE EX REL. MACK, APPELLANT, v. COLLIER, JUDGE, APPELLEE.

No. 2011-0719

Supreme Court of Ohio

Submitted August 8, 2011—Decided August 30, 2011.

129 Ohio St.3d 497, 2011-Ohio-4188

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint of appellant, Jeffery Mack, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Medina County Court of Common Pleas Judge Christopher J. Collier, to hold a de novo resentencing hearing to correct an error in a sentencing entry that allegedly violated Crim.R. 32(C). “[T]he remedy for a failure to comply with Crim.R. 32(C) is a revised sentencing entry rather than a new hearing.”

, quoting
. In addition, any error regarding the failure to hold a sentencing hearing before issuing a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the term of postrelease control could have been raised on appeal.
. Finally, although Mack claims on appeal that he is entitled to a revised sentencing entry setting forth the manner of his conviction, his prayer for relief in his complaint was limited to a resentencing hearing. Mack thus waived this claim. See
(relator in mandamus case waived claim that it could have raised, but failed to raise, in its complaint or in an amended complaint).

Judgment affirmed.

O‘CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur.

Jeffery Mack, pro se.

Dean Holman, Medina County Prosecuting Attorney, and Matthew Kern, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

THE STATE EX REL. PRUITT, APPELLANT, v. DONNELLY, JUDGE, ET AL., APPELLEES.

No. 2011-0520

Supreme Court of Ohio

Submitted August 8, 2011—Decided August 31, 2011.

129 Ohio St.3d 498, 2011-Ohio-4203

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint of appellant, Michael Jarmal Pruitt, for writs of mandamus and prohibition to compel appellees, common pleas court judges, to vacate his convictions and sentence. Pruitt claimed that despite the language in his sentencing entry, he had not entered pleas of guilty to having a weapon while under disability and to a firearm specification relating to an attempted-murder charge.

{¶ 2} The common pleas court had jurisdiction over Pruitt‘s criminal proceeding, including sentencing. See R.C. 2931.03. Error in sentencing does not