State ex rel. Compton v. Sutula

2012 Ohio 1653, 132 Ohio St. 3d 35
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedApril 17, 2012
Docket2011-2186
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 2012 Ohio 1653 (State ex rel. Compton v. Sutula) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Compton v. Sutula, 2012 Ohio 1653, 132 Ohio St. 3d 35 (Ohio 2012).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Appellant, John Compton, filed a mandamus complaint in the court of appeals seeking to compel appellee, Judge John D. Sutula of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, to rule on Compton’s motions for jail-time credit. The writ was denied.

*36 John Compton, pro se. William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

{¶2} By separate entry, the appellate court denied Compton’s motion to amend his complaint to add a claim seeking to compel appellee to issue a final, appealable order in Compton’s criminal case. In so ruling, the court rejected Compton’s argument that the trial court’s nunc pro tunc sentencing entry was defective under Crim.R. 32(C) and therefore not final and appealable, leaving him without a remedy. It is from this ruling that Compton appeals.

{¶ 3} The court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying Compton’s motion because any order to comply with Crim.R. 32(C) to correct a clerical error in his original sentencing entry would not constitute a final, appealable order from which a new appeal may be taken. State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, paragraph two of the syllabus.

{¶ 4} Moreover, Compton waived his claim that Judge Sutula could not rely on a nunc pro tunc order to rectify any error in his sentencing entry because he failed to raise the claim in the court of appeals. See State ex rel DeGroot v. Tilsley, 128 Ohio St.3d 311, 2011-Ohio-231, 943 N.E.2d 1018, ¶ 9.

{¶ 5} Finally, Compton’s claims concerning jail-time credit were rendered moot when he was released from prison. State ex rel. Gordon v. Murphy, 112 Ohio St.3d 329, 2006-Ohio-6572, 859 N.E.2d 928, ¶ 6.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. McCormick
2025 Ohio 5549 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
State v. Fleenor
2025 Ohio 4897 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
State v. Cherry
2025 Ohio 1152 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
State v. Britford
2024 Ohio 820 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State v. Hanson
2020 Ohio 4780 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2020)
State v. Troyer
2019 Ohio 4929 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2019)
State v. Nixon
2019 Ohio 4322 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2019)
State v. Tharp
2019 Ohio 661 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2019)
State v. Whited
2019 Ohio 18 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2019)
State v. Burns
2018 Ohio 4657 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)
State v. Mastrodonato
2018 Ohio 4004 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)
State v. Williams
2018 Ohio 3989 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)
State v. Rhymer
2018 Ohio 2669 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)
State v. Jama
2018 Ohio 1274 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)
State v. Hiler
2015 Ohio 5200 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2015)
State v. Barnes
2015 Ohio 3523 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2015)
State v. Lynch
2015 Ohio 3366 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2015)
State v. Keckler
2013 Ohio 5493 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)
State ex rel. Newell v. Gaul
2013 Ohio 68 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2012 Ohio 1653, 132 Ohio St. 3d 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-compton-v-sutula-ohio-2012.