STATE EX REL. DAVID A. PEOPLES v. MARYELLEN O‘SHAUGHNESSY et al.
Case No. 19 MA 0072
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MAHONING COUNTY
August 17, 2020
[Cite as State ex rel. Peoples v. O‘Shaughnessy, 2020-Ohio-4432.]
Carol Ann Robb, Cheryl L. Waite, David A. D’Apolito, Judges.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
JUDGMENT: Dismissed.
David A. Peoples, Pro se, A576 -128, 2240 Hubbard Road, Youngstown, Ohio 44505, for Relator and
Atty. Ronald O’Brien, Prosecutor, 373 South High Street, 14th Floor, Columbus, Ohio, 43215, Atty. Bryan Lee, Assistant Prosecutor, 373 South High Street, 13th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215, Atty. Timothy J. Bojanowski, Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, P.L.C., 3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300, Chandler, Arizona 85226, Atty. Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General George Horvath, Criminal Justice
Dated: August 17, 2020
PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Relator David A. Peoples, an inmate proceeding on his own behalf, has filed this original action seeking a writ of mandamus against three respondents; each whom have a statutory and/or contractual responsibility relative to his current state of imprisonment. In 2002, a jury convicted Relator of one count of aggravated murder in violation of
{¶2} In 2017, Relator filed a motion to vacate a void sentence in the trial court arguing the mandated sentence for the drive-by specification under
{¶3} The first respondent Relator names in his mandamus complaint is Respondent Maryellen O’Shaughnessy, Franklin County Clerk of Courts. Relator asks
{¶4} The second respondent is Respondent Christopher LaRose, warden of a private prison owned and operated by CoreCivic, located at 2240 Hubbard Road in Youngstown, Mahoning County, Ohio. Core Civic contracts with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to house immigrant detainees, the United States Marshals Service to house captured fugitives, and the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (NEOCC). The NEOCC is one of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s (ODRC) prison institutions. The ODRC is responsible for all adult criminal defendants convicted of felonies for which the statutory minimum is at least six months. Relator is a prison inmate of the NEOCC division of CoreCivic’s facility.
{¶5} The third respondent is Respondent Annette Chambers-Smith, Director of the ODRC. Relator asks this Court to compel Respondent LaRose and Respondent Chambers-Smith to return him to the Franklin County jail and into the custody of the Franklin County Sheriff in accordance with the aforementioned Tenth District Court of Appeal’s decision.
{¶6} Each Respondent has filed their own motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). While there is some minor differentiation among the arguments underlying each motion; they all agree and argue the Relator’s complaint should be dismissed as moot.
{¶7} A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which should be exercised by this Court with caution and issued only when the right is clear. State ex rel. Brown v. Ashtabula Cty. Bd. of Elections, 142 Ohio St.3d 370, 2014-Ohio-4022, 31 N.E.3d 596, ¶ 11. Entitlement to a writ of mandamus requires the relator to demonstrate: (1) they have a clear legal right to the relief, (2) the respondent has a clear legal duty to provide that relief, and (3) relator has no adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Taxpayers for Westerville Schools v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 133 Ohio St.3d 153, 2012-Ohio-4267, 976 N.E.2d 890, ¶ 12.
R.C. 2953.13 – Clerk of Courts’ Duty
{¶8} Relator argues Respondent O’Shaughnessy failed to send a certified copy of the Tenth District Court of Appeal’s decision in State v. Peoples, 10th Dist. Franklin No.
When a defendant has been committed to a state correctional institution and the judgment by virtue of which the commitment was made is reversed on appeal, and the defendant is entitled to discharge or a new trial, or when the case is remanded to the trial court for any reason, the clerk of the court reversing the judgment or remanding the case, under the seal of the court, shall forthwith certify the reversal or remand to the warden of the state correctional institution.
{¶9} Respondent O’Shaughnessy acknowledges that a certified copy of the decision was first sent by certified mail to the incorrect ODRC warden and institution—Charmaine Bracey, warden of the Northeast Reintegration Center, another institution of the ODRC located at 2675 East 30th Street in Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. She states that was the information they had in the system at the time of the Tenth District’s decision and upon learning of the error proceeded to send a certified copy of the decision by certified mail to Respondent LaRose. Respondent O’Shaughnessy has attached to her motion to dismiss a certified copy of the certified mail receipt substantiating that her office sent a certified copy of the Tenth District’s decision to Respondent LaRose. Relator argues this “attempt” to send the decision to Respondent LaRose is void. However, Relator offers no statutory or caselaw in support of this argument. Rather, the attachment to her motion to dismiss conclusively demonstrates that she sent the decision to Respondent LaRose. State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer, Div. of Gannett Satellite Info. Network, Inc. v. Dupuis, 98 Ohio St.3d 126, 2002-Ohio-7041, 781 N.E.2d 163, ¶ 8 (“An
R.C. 2953.13 – Warden’s Duty
{¶10} The remainder of
The warden, on receipt of the certificate, if a discharge of the defendant is ordered, shall forthwith discharge the defendant from the state correctional institution.
If a new trial is ordered or the case is remanded, the warden shall forthwith cause the defendant to be conveyed to the jail of the county in which the defendant was convicted, and committed to the custody of the sheriff of that county.
{¶11} In this instance, the Tenth District did not order Relator’s discharge or order a new trial which would have necessitated his conveyance to the jail of the county in which he was convicted (Franklin County). Although the Tenth District remanded the case to the trial court, it was not the type of remand in which the Tenth District contemplated Relator’s conveyance from prison to the Franklin County jail. Rather it was a remand to the trial court with specific instructions concerning one specification attendant to one of multiple offenses.
{¶12} The last paragraph of the Court’s decision was specific and did not include any reference to a resentencing hearing or the necessity for Relator to be returned to Franklin County as a result of its decision:
Peoples has appealed from a decision denying his motion to vacate a void sentence. Because we agree that Peoples’ sentence under
R.C. 2941.146 is void, we sustain his sole assignment of error. We reverse the trial court’s denial of Peoples’ August 7, 2017 motion to vacate, and we remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to vacate Peoples’ six-year sentence on theR.C. 2941.146 firearm specification and resentencePeoples to the statutorily mandated five-year term for that specification. Peoples’ three-year sentence on the R.C. 2941.145 firearm specification and his sentence on the underlying aggravated murder conviction remain unchanged. The computation of the start of his sentence on the aggravated murder conviction should be adjusted to reflect the one-year reduction in his sentence on theR.C. 2941.146 firearm specification.
{¶13} Eleven days later, the Franklin County Common Pleas Court issued an Amended Judgment Entry changing Relator’s sentence for the drive-by specification from six years to five years. (06/10/2010 A.J.E.)
{¶14} As this Court has previously observed, there is a rule in Ohio that the law does not require futile or vain acts. Love v. Beck Energy Corp., 7th Dist. Noble No. 14 NO 415, 2015-Ohio-1283, ¶ 40, citing State ex rel. Teamsters Local Union 436 v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 132 Ohio St.3d 47, 2012-Ohio-1861, 969 N.E.2d 224, ¶ 24 (parties do not need to pursue their administrative remedies if doing so would be a vain or futile act); State ex rel. Strothers v. Turner, 79 Ohio St.3d 272, 274, 680 N.E.2d 1238 (1997) (“[M]andamus will not issue to compel a vain act.”).
{¶15} The Franklin County Common Pleas Court’s issuing of the Amended Judgment Entry in accordance with the Tenth District’s decision makes the conveyance of Relator to the Franklin County jail a futile or vain act. Put another way, Relator’s claim against Respondent LaRose and Respondent Annette Chambers-Smith is moot. The Tenth District acknowledged this as much in its decision, noting Relator has already served his term for both firearm specifications pursuant to
{¶16} In State ex rel. Ellis v. Burnside, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103469, 2015-Ohio-5432, the Eight District Court of Appeals dismissed a mandamus action very similar
{¶17} Relator then filed an original action in mandamus in the Eighth District seeking to have it compel the warden to transport him to the trial court for resentencing. The Court dismissed the mandamus action, reiterating:
It must also be noted that requiring Ellis to be conveyed to the trial court would constitute a vain act because no resentencing was required. State ex rel. Strothers v. Turner, 79 Ohio St.3d 272, 1997-Ohio-154, 680 N.E.2d 1238. The trial court was simply required to discharge a ministerial act by vacating a conviction as ordered in State v. Ellis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99830, 2014-Ohio-116.
State ex rel. Ellis v. Burnside, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103469, 2015-Ohio-5432, ¶ 7.
{¶18} In sum, each of the Respondents have fulfilled their legal duties to Relator—it would be unlawful to convey him to the Franklin County jail. He is currently serving a sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment for aggravated murdered. Not only is that sentence a mandatory sentence.
{¶19} Accordingly, the Court sustains each Respondent’s respective motion to dismiss and dismisses Relator’s original action seeking a writ of mandamus. The Court overrules as moot all pending and as-yet ruled upon pleadings Relator has filed on his own behalf in this case subsequent to the filing of this original action.
{¶20} Costs taxed against Relator. Final order. Clerk to serve copies of this decision and judgment entry pursuant to the civil rules.
JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB
JUDGE CHERYL L. WAITE
JUDGE DAVID A. D’APOLITO