State ex rel. Grinnell v. Reece

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Grinnell v. Reece

2013 Ohio 733, 985 N.E.2d 1269, 135 Ohio St. 3d 255

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 5, 2013

Docket2012-1720

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2013 Ohio 733 (State ex rel. Grinnell v. Reece) 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. Grinnell v. Reece, 2013 Ohio 733, 985 N.E.2d 1269, 135 Ohio St. 3d 255 (Ohio 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint of appellant, Timothy Grinnell, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel *256 appellee, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Guy L. Reece II, to resentence him by issuing a judgment of conviction and sentence that complies with Crim.R. 32(C).

Timothy Grinnell, pro se. Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and A. Paul Theis, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

{¶ 2} “Neither mandamus nor procedendo will lie to compel an act that has already been performed.” State ex rel. Lester v. Pepple, 130 Ohio St.3d 353, 2011-Ohio-5756, 958 N.E.2d 566, ¶ 1. Grinnell’s sentencing entry constitutes a final, appealable order because it set forth his convictions, the sentence, the judge’s signature, and the time stamp indicating the entry upon the journal by the clerk. State ex rel. Culgan v. Kimbler, 132 Ohio St.3d 480, 2012-Ohio-3310, 974 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 1. Grinnell claims that the sentencing entry does not comply with Crim.R. 32(C), because it fails to specify whether he was convicted of specifications that he had been charged with. But there is no evidence that he was convicted of the specifications, and Crim.R. 32(C) requires a resolution of only those charges for which there were convictions. See State ex rel. Rose v. McGinty, 128 Ohio St.3d 371, 2011-Ohio-761, 944 N.E.2d 672, ¶ 3.

{¶ 3} Moreover, Grinnell’s discussion regarding the entry not being timestamped is factually inaccurate. While the time-stamp on the copy of the entry attached to Grinnell’s petition is hard to see, the darker copy appended to Judge Reece’s brief clearly shows that the entry was stamped and certified by the clerk.

{¶ 4} Therefore, the court of appeals properly dismissed Grinnell’s claims for extraordinary relief in mandamus and procedendo.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the complaint of appellant, Timothy Grinnell, for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel *256 appellee, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Judge Guy L. Reece II, to resentence him by issuing a judgment of conviction and sentence that complies with Crim.R. 32(C).

Timothy Grinnell, pro se. Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and A. Paul Theis, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

{¶ 2} “Neither mandamus nor procedendo will lie to compel an act that has already been performed.” State ex rel. Lester v. Pepple, 130 Ohio St.3d 353, 2011-Ohio-5756, 958 N.E.2d 566, ¶ 1. Grinnell’s sentencing entry constitutes a final, appealable order because it set forth his convictions, the sentence, the judge’s signature, and the time stamp indicating the entry upon the journal by the clerk. State ex rel. Culgan v. Kimbler, 132 Ohio St.3d 480, 2012-Ohio-3310, 974 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 1. Grinnell claims that the sentencing entry does not comply with Crim.R. 32(C), because it fails to specify whether he was convicted of specifications that he had been charged with. But there is no evidence that he was convicted of the specifications, and Crim.R. 32(C) requires a resolution of only those charges for which there were convictions. See State ex rel. Rose v. McGinty, 128 Ohio St.3d 371, 2011-Ohio-761, 944 N.E.2d 672, ¶ 3.

{¶ 3} Moreover, Grinnell’s discussion regarding the entry not being timestamped is factually inaccurate. While the time-stamp on the copy of the entry attached to Grinnell’s petition is hard to see, the darker copy appended to Judge Reece’s brief clearly shows that the entry was stamped and certified by the clerk.

{¶ 4} Therefore, the court of appeals properly dismissed Grinnell’s claims for extraordinary relief in mandamus and procedendo.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2013 Ohio 733, 985 N.E.2d 1269, 135 Ohio St. 3d 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-grinnell-v-reece-ohio-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack