State ex rel. Hopson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Common Pleas Court ( 2012 )

[Cite as State ex rel. Hopson v. Cuyahoga Cty. Common Pleas Court, 2012-Ohio-5701.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 99053
STATE EX REL. JEFFERY HOPSON
RELATOR
vs.
CUYAHOGA COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
WRIT DENIED
Writ of Mandamus and/or Procedendo
Motion No. 460082
Order No. 460477
RELEASE DATE: December 5, 2012
FOR RELATOR
Jeffery Hopson, pro se
Inmate No. 341-371
Toledo Correctional Institution
2001 East Central Avenue
Toledo, OH 43608
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: James E. Moss
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Justice Center - 9th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
{¶1} Jeffery Hopson has filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus and/or procedendo.
Hopson seeks an order from this court that requires the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas to issue a “sentencing opinion” as mandated by R.C. 2929.03(F). Specifically, Hopson
argues that his conviction for aggravated murder and the imposition of life imprisonment
required that the panel of three judges that presided over his trial state in a separate opinion the
specific findings of which of the mitigating factors set forth in division (B) of R.C. 2929.04 it
found to exist, what aggravating circumstances Hopson was found guilty of committing, and
why the panel of three judges could not find that the aggravating circumstances were sufficient
to outweigh the mitigating factors. The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas has filed
a motion for summary judgment, which we grant for the following reasons.
{¶2} Initially, we find that Hopson’s complaint for a writ of mandamus and/or
procedendo is procedurally defective. Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a) provides that a complaint for
an extraordinary writ must be supported by a sworn affidavit that specifies the details of
Hopson’s claim. A simple statement that verifies that Hopson has reviewed the complaint
and that the contents are true and accurate does not satisfy the mandatory requirement under
Loc.App.R. 45(B)(1)(a). State ex rel. Jones v. McGinty, 8th Dist. No. 92602,
2009-Ohio-1258; State ex rel. Mayes v. Ambrose, 8th Dist. No. 91980, 2009-Ohio-25; James
v. Callahan, 8th Dist. No. 89654, 2007-Ohio-2237.
{¶3} Finally, attached to the motion for summary judgment is a copy of the sentencing
journal entry, as executed by the panel of three judges in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-344107,
which was journalized on June 20, 1997. The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
fully complied with the requirements of R.C. 2929.03(F) because it issued a sentencing
opinion and a separate sentencing journal entry. Neither procedendo nor mandamus will
compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed. State ex rel. Fontanella
v. Kontos, 117 Ohio St.3d 514, 2008-Ohio-1431, 885 N.E.2d 220.
{¶4} Accordingly, we grant the motion for summary judgment. Hopson to pay costs.
The court directs the clerk of the court to serve all parties with notice of this judgment and its
date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).
{¶5} Writ denied.
________________________________
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR