State ex rel. Duncan v. DeWeese

2012 Ohio 3835, 132 Ohio St. 3d 525
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 30, 2012
Docket2012-0904
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2012 Ohio 3835 (State ex rel. Duncan v. DeWeese) 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. Duncan v. DeWeese, 2012 Ohio 3835, 132 Ohio St. 3d 525 (Ohio 2012).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the petition of appellant, Roy Duncan, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, Richland County Common Pleas Court Judge James DeWeese, to issue a new sentencing entry. Duncan asserts that his current sentencing entry is not a final, appealable order.

{¶ 2} Contrary to Duncan’s assertion, to be final and appealable, the sentencing entry did not need to contain a disposition concerning specifications that Duncan was charged with but was not convicted of. See State ex rel. Rose v. McGinty, 128 Ohio St.3d 371, 2011-Ohio-761, 944 N.E.2d 672, ¶ 3; State ex rel. Davis v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 127 Ohio St.3d 29, 2010-Ohio-4728, 936 N.E.2d 41, ¶ 2.

*526 Roy Duncan, pro se. James J. Mayer Jr., Richland County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jill M. Cochran, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

{¶ 3} The December 8, 2009 sentencing entry for Duncan fully complies with Crim.R. 32(C) and R.C. 2505.02 because it states that he was convicted by a jury of specified crimes, it sets forth the sentence, it is signed by the judge, and it was entered upon the journal by the clerk of court. 1 Rose at ¶ 2.

{¶ 4} Therefore, Duncan is not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus to compel Judge DeWeese to enter a new sentencing entry.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur.
1

. The entry orders Duncan to “pay restitution for medical expenses to Kathy Ward, Richard Miller, or providers.” In a subsequent entry denying Duncan’s motion for resentencing, the court stated that Duncan owed no monetary restitution. The entries thus resolved any issue concerning restitution.

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

Related

State ex rel. Harper v. Lucas Cty. Common Pleas Court
2017 Ohio 614 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2012 Ohio 3835, 132 Ohio St. 3d 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-duncan-v-deweese-ohio-2012.