State Ex Rel. Galloway v. Lucas County Court of Common Pleas

2011 Ohio 5259, 130 Ohio St. 3d 206

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request of appellant, Carlos G. Galloway Jr., for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel appellees, Lucas County Court of Common Pleas and Judge Denise Ann Dartt, to issue judgments in his criminal cases that comply with Crim.R. 32(C) and constitute final, appealable orders.

{¶ 2} The sentencing entries in Galloway’s criminal cases fully complied with Crim.R. 32(C) by including the jury verdicts upon which the convictions are based, the sentence, and the signature of the judge and by being entered on the journal by the clerk of court. See State ex rel. Peterson v. Durkin, 129 Ohio St.3d 213, 2011-Ohio-2639, 951 N.E.2d 381, ¶ 1.

{¶ 3} Moreover, insofar as Galloway claims that one of his sentencing entries did not properly reflect the jury’s verdict, he raises mere error, and he had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise the issue. See generally Manns v. Gan sheimer, 117 Ohio St.3d 251, 2008-Ohio-851, 883 N.E.2d 431, ¶ 6 (“sentencing errors are not jurisdictional and are not remediable * * * by extraordinary writ”); State ex rel. Jelinek v. Schneider, 127 Ohio St.3d 332, 2010-Ohio-5986, 939 N.E.2d 847, ¶ 13 (neither mandamus nor procedendo will issue if the relator has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law).

Carlos G. Galloway Jr., pro se. Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and John A. Borell, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.

{¶ 4} Finally, any error regarding the imposition of court costs can be challenged by appeal. State ex rel. Whittenberger v. Clarke (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 207, 208, 729 N.E.2d 756.

{¶ 5} Therefore, the court of appeals properly denied Galloway’s request for extraordinary relief in mandamus and procedendo, and we affirm that judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

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