State ex rel. Samples v. Heath ( 2012 )

[Cite as State ex rel. Samples v. Heath , 2012-Ohio-2880.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
: JUDGES:
THE STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. : W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
DOUGLAS LEE SAMPLES : Sheila G. Farmer, J.
: Julie A. Edwards, J.
Relator :
: Case No. 2012CA00035
-vs- :
:
: OPINION
JUDGE TARYN L. HEATH, STARK
COUNTY COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS
Respondent
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Writ of Mandamus and Procedendo
JUDGMENT: Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 25, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Relator For Respondent
DOUGLAS SAMPLES, Pro Se JOHN D. FERRERO, JR.
Inmate No. A541-614 Stark County Prosecuting Attorney
P.O. Box 57 RONALD MARK CALDWELL
Marion, Ohio 43301 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Stark County Prosecutor’s Office
Appellate Section
110 Central Plaza, South – Suite 510
Canton, Ohio 44702-1413
[Cite as State ex rel. Samples v. Heath , 2012-Ohio-2880.]
Edwards, J.
{¶1} Relator, Douglas Samples, has filed a Complaint for Writ of Mandamus
and Complaint for Writ of Procedendo. Samples raises five issues which he avers
warrant the issuance of a writ. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss arguing
Relator has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
{¶2} For a writ of mandamus to issue, the relator must have a clear legal right
to the relief prayed for, the respondent must be under a clear legal duty to perform the
requested act, and relator must have no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. State, ex rel. Berger, v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 28, 6 OBR 50,
451 N.E.2d 225.
{¶3} First, Relator argues his sentencing judgment is void because the
sentence was imposed by video rather than in person. This Court has approved the
use of video resentencing. State v. Dunivant 2011 WL 6938330, 3 (Ohio App. 5 Dist.).
Therefore, Relator cannot demonstrate a clear legal right to be sentenced in person.
Further Relator has or had an adequate remedy at law because this is an issue which
could have been raised on direct appeal. For these reasons, Relator has not
demonstrated the required elements which would support the issuance of a writ of
mandamus.
{¶4} Relator’s second contention is that the trial court’s second sentencing
entry is void because the trial court failed to vacate the first sentencing entry prior to
imposing the second entry. Relator provides no authority for this proposition, therefore,
he has failed to demonstrate that Respondent has a clear legal duty to vacate the first
sentence. For this reason, the requested writ of mandamus is denied.
Stark County App. Case No. 2012CA00035 3
{¶5} In his third claim for relief, Relator argues the second sentence was void
because the jury failed to make a specific finding as to the degree of offense. This is an
issue raised pursuant to the Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Pelfrey (2007), 112
Ohio St.3d. 422. “A direct appeal from a final judgment of conviction is an adequate
remedy at law, which bars a relator's mandamus action.” State ex rel. McKinney v.
McKay 2011 WL 3274082, 4 (Ohio App. 11 Dist.). Relator has or had an adequate
remedy at law by way of direct appeal to raise this issue. For this reason, a writ of
mandamus is precluded.
{¶6} In Relator’s fourth mandamus claim, he argues his sentence is void
because of the delay in resentencing. The crux of Relator’s claim is that he still has not
received a valid sentence, therefore, there has been a delay which violates his
constitutional rights. We found in Case Number No. 2010-CA-00122 that Relator did
receive a valid sentence. The Supreme Court has held procedendo and mandamus will
not issue where the requested relief has been obtained, “Neither procedendo nor
mandamus will compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.”
State ex rel. Kreps v. Christiansen (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 313, 318, 725 N.E.2d 663,
668. The trial court has already provided the requested final order, therefore, the
instant petition is moot as to this claim. Further, Relator cannot establish the necessary
elements required for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.
{¶7} Relator’s final claim is one in procedendo and relates to Respondent’s
failure to rule on motions in the trial court which were pending at the time the instant
complaint was filed. Writs of procedendo are limited to a superior court ordering a lower
court to proceed, “[T]he limited purpose of the writ is to require a lower court to go
Stark County App. Case No. 2012CA00035 4
forward ‘when a court has either refused to render a judgment or has unnecessarily
delayed proceeding to judgment.’ State ex rel. Miley v. Parrott (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 64,
65, 671 N.E.2d 24.” State ex rel. Lemons v. Kontos 2009 WL 4756269, 2 (Ohio App. 11
Dist.).
{¶8} Respondent has now ruled on the motions which were pending in the trial
court making this portion of Relator’s complaint moot.
{¶9} For these reasons, the instant petition is dismissed as moot and for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
By: Edwards, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Farmer, J. concur
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
JUDGES
JAE/ads0507
[Cite as State ex rel. Samples v. Heath , 2012-Ohio-2880.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL. :
DOUGLAS LEE SAMPLES :
:
Relator :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
JUDGE TARYN L. HEATH, :
STARK COUNTY COURT OF :
COMMON PLEAS :
:
Respondent : CASE NO. 2012CA00035
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the
Complaint is dismissed. Costs assessed to Relator.
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
JUDGES