State ex rel. Dowdy v. Ambrose

[Cite as State ex rel. Dowdy v. Ambrose, 2011-Ohio-4265.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 96772
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.,
SHAUN DOWDY
RELATOR
vs.
HON. DICK AMBROSE
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
WRIT DISMISSED
Writ of Prohibition
Motion No. 444812
Order No. 446845
RELEASE DATE: August 23, 2011
2
FOR RELATOR:
Shaun Dowdy
Inmate No. 581-923
Mansfield Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 788
1150 N. Main Street
Mansfield, Ohio 44901
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: James E. Moss
Assistant County Prosecutor
9th Floor Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.:
{¶ 1} Shaun Dowdy, the relator, has filed a complaint for a writ of
prohibition. Dowdy seeks an order from this court that requires Judge Dick
Ambrose, the respondent, “to comply with all applicable rules, statues and
proper remedy’s (sic) when imposing a sentence” in State v. Dowdy, Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-520345. Judge Ambrose has
filed a motion to dismiss, which we grant for the following reasons.
3
{¶ 2} On February 17, 2010, Dowdy entered a plea of guilty to one
count of murder (R.C. 29403.01(A)) with a three-year firearm specification
(R.C. 2941.145(A)) and one count of kidnapping (R.C. 2905.01(A)(3)) and was
sentenced to incarceration for twenty years to life with regard to the offense
of murder, three years of incarceration with regard to the firearm
specification, and ten years of incarceration with regard to the offense of
kidnapping. The terms of incarceration were run consecutive to each other
resulting in an aggregated sentence of 33 years to life.
{¶ 3} On December 27, 2010, Dowdy filed a motion for resentencing
premised upon the allegation that he was not properly advised of the right to
an appeal, pursuant to Crim.R. 32(B), during his original sentencing hearing.
On March 17, 2011, Judge Ambrose issued a corrected journal entry that
advised Dowdy of his appellate rights. On April 7, 2011, Dowdy filed a notice
of appeal from the corrected sentencing journal entry. See State v. Dowdy,
Cuyahoga App. No. 96642. On May 10, 2011, Dowdy filed his complaint for a
writ of prohibition in an attempt to vacate the corrected sentencing journal
entry.
{¶ 4} Specifically, Dowdy argues that compliance with Crim.R. 43(A)
requires his presence in court prior to correction of the original sentence to
include advisement of the right to an appeal. Dowdy further argues that
4
without his presence in court for resentencing, Judge Ambrose is prohibited
from issuing a corrected sentencing journal entry. For the following reasons,
we decline to issue a writ of prohibition on behalf of Dowdy.
{¶ 5} A writ of prohibition constitutes a legal order that is intended to
enjoin a court of inferior jurisdiction from acting beyond the scope of its
jurisdiction. State ex rel. Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70, 1998-Ohio-275,
701 N.E.2d 1002. In order for this court to issue a writ of prohibition, Dowdy
must establish that (1) Judge Ambrose is about to exercise judicial or
quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is not authorized by law,
and (3) denying the writ will result in injury for which no other adequate
remedy exists in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Sliwinski v.
Burnham Unruh, 118 Ohio St.3d 76, 2008-Ohio-1734, 886 N.E.2d 201; State
ex rel. Lipinski v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 74 Ohio St.3d 19,
1995-Ohio-96, 655 N.E.2d 1303. An adequate remedy at law will preclude
relief in prohibition. State ex rel. Lesher v. Kainrad (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 68,
417 N.E.2d 1382; State ex rel. Sibarco Corp. v. Berea (1966), 7 Ohio St.2d 85,
218 N.E.2d 428. Furthermore, absent a patent and unambiguous lack of
jurisdiction, a court having general subject-matter jurisdiction over an action
possesses the legal authority to determine its own jurisdiction, and a party
challenging its jurisdiction possesses an adequate remedy at law by way of a
5
post-judgment appeal. Whitehall ex rel. Wolfe v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm., 74
Ohio St.3d 120, 1995-Ohio-302, 656 N.E.2d 688.
{¶ 6} In the case sub judice, Judge Ambrose possesses general subject
matter jurisdiction over the criminal proceedings under R.C. 2901.11 and
2931.03 and absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, possesses
the legal authority to determine his own jurisdiction. Whitehall ex rel. Wolfe
v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm., supra. See, also, State ex rel. Mosier v. Fornof,
126 Ohio St.3d 47, 2010-Ohio-2516, 930 N.E.2d 305.
{¶ 7} In addition, Dowdy has already availed himself of an adequate
remedy at law through a direct appeal. Any errors associated with the
alleged defective resentencing may be addressed on appeal and not through
an original action. State ex rel. Gooden v. Teodosio, 128 Ohio St.3d 538,
2011-Ohio-1915, 947 N.E.2d 1206; State ex rel. Scheck v. Collier, 128 Ohio
St.3d 316, 2011-Ohio-233, 943 N.E.2d 1022; State ex rel. Williams v. Bessey,
125 Ohio St.3d 447, 2010-Ohio-2113, 928 N.E.2d 1091.
{¶ 8} Accordingly, we grant Judge Ambrose’s motion to dismiss. Costs
to Dowdy. It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Eighth District Court of
Appeals serve notice of this judgment upon all parties as required by Civ.R.
58(B).
Complaint dismissed.
6
__________________________________________
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, JUDGE
MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR